Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Private Schools

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any proposals to increase his powers of supervision over the standards of academic work and pastoral care at private schools in the Principality.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): No, Sir. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have a programme of regular visits to independent schools in Wales. Parents, too, will exercise their own controls in checking on standards at such schools.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that he does not appear to have any powers to determine the fitness for the teaching profession of headmasters who are also the proprietors of their own schools? I cite as an example Mr. William Hoole of New College school, Cardiff, who was sacked as headmaster of the school last October for three

offences. The first offence was a liaison with a sixth former under his charge. The second was a physical assault of an 11-year-old pupil under his charge, for which that pupil is still receiving medical treatment nine months later. The third offence was diverting a five-figure sum of school fees to the purchase of a flat for that sixth-form pupil, who is now a university student.
Mr. Hoole was subsequently reinstated by the device of an extraordinary general meeting. Does the Minister agree that in these circumstances the list 99 procedure does not appear to apply and that he should take more powers to cover these circumstances?

Mr. Roberts: I have noted the contents of the hon. Gentleman's early day motion. The HMI visited New College school in June of last year and saw no ground for concern then. It will be visiting the school again this year. Should any concerns be identified, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider whether he needs to take action. Should my right hon. Friend be dissatisfied with standards of education or accommodation at an independent school, or with the fitness of its proprietor, he can issue a notice of complaint requiring remedial action to be taken.

Inward Investment

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of net inward investment in Wales in 1987; and if he will make a statement on present trends.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The latest estimate of inward investment into Wales in 1987 is 113 projects, involving investment of £244 million.
Present trends suggest that there is every prospect of this high level of activity being maintained. In the first five months of this year projects involving investment of £248 million have taken place.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Does he agree that the remarks of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) last Thursday about a coolie economy and the attack by the


Trades Union Congress on single-union agreements in Wales do nothing to help this excellent trend and may damage the Welsh economy?

Mr. Walker: Quite a number of single union agreements in Wales have been reached by a whole range of unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, which has recently negotiated a very successful one. As for the remarks concerning a coolie economy, I do not think that any of the many fine Japanese and German firms that we are delighted have come into Wales will take those remarks seriously.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State will recall that recently published figures show that inward investment has had relatively little impact in Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed. When does he expect that to change?

Mr. Walker: It is more difficult to attract inward investment from overseas to the geographically more remote parts of Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. We endeavour to compensate for that by the activities of the Welsh Development Agency in encouraging new business. Furthermore, we point to the success stories in mid-Wales and elsewhere when some of the bigger British firms have gone into those localities.

Mr. Raffan: Is my right hon. Friend able to say what the full-time male Welsh coolie is now being paid, compared with 1979 when the shadow Secretary of State last held Government office?

Mr. Walker: In 1979 the full-time male employee in Wales received £97·60 a week. Now he is likely to receive about £220 a week.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Secretary of State said that one element in his Valleys initiative will be the help that he will give to Welsh component suppliers. Can he say specifically what kind of help that will be?

Mr. Walker: We have already had a series of meetings with component suppliers to the motor industry. In the Valleys initiative I said that the WDA was carrying out a major market research programme to see what we can identify about the potential for component part manufacturers. Having identified that, we can take appropriate decisions.

Elderly People

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding of research programmes on the elderly in Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of state for Wales what representations he has received concerning the withdrawal of funding for the University of Wales's research team for the care of the eldery; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Several representations have been received about the withdrawl of funding for the University of Wales' research team for care of the elderly.
It is standard practice for the work of such units to be reviewed regularly, and a recent exercise was carried out by a team of independent experts led by the DHSS chief scientist. As the present contract for the unit was due to end in January 1989, it was decided that the time would be

opportune to reorientate the clinical and Health Service-related research effort in this field of study by making other more beneficial and cost-effective arrangements. Current spending on research into care of the elderly in England and Wales is about £400,000, of which about half is spent in Wales.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that by the year 2000 there will be over double the number of 85-year-olds in the community, and that they are by far the greatest users of health and social services? Is this not a case of cutting off of one's nose to spite one's face, since the unit in Cardiff was especially expert in looking at ways of keeping elderly people in the community rather than paying a great deal of public money to keep them in private residential homes? Is this not yet another penny-pinching and mean exercise by the Welsh Office?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Lady is confusing research in this field with the sort of action that we are taking under the elderly initiative. I remind her that the research is not finished, because the Welsh Office is funding the esearch unit at the University College of North Wales in Bangor, which is excellently directed by Dr. Gordon Grant.

Mr. Davies: Does not this matter graphically illustrate the differences between the Secretary of State's promises and the actions of his Department? Less than a fortnight ago he promised new initiatives to help tackle the problems of the elderly in the valleys, but now we have a decision which effectively means withdrawing support from the body that is charged with identifying those needs. How can the needs be met if the means to identify them are not available?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my answer. The money involved remains in Wales and it is for the Welsh Office to find a more beneficial and efficient use for it. I should have thought that the more efficient use of money for the elderly would be welcomed by all hon. Members.

Roads

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Since 1979–80 just over £1 billion has been spent on motorways and trunk roads in Wales and over £270 million has been provided to Welsh local authorities as transport supplementary grant for improvement of their roads. Twenty-two miles of motorway and 110 miles of trunk road have been constructed.

Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say what further schemes he has in mind for the current year and what the cost of these is likely to be?

Mr. Roberts: Before the end of the financial year we expect to let contracts for four schemes, costing over £53 million. Those are subject to completion of outstanding procedures and the availability of resources. They are on the A48 the Nantycaws-Coed Hirion bypass, on the A55, the Travellers' Inn improvement and the Pen y clip tunnels and on the A483, the Chirk bypass.

Mr. Foot: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is high time the Welsh Office looked at all the requests that have been put to it for the enlargement of the heads of the valley road and its establishment as a proper dual carriageway, instead of the virtual death trap that was built some years ago? Will the Welsh Office look afresh at the whole project? If developments in other parts of Wales are to go ahead, surely the Welsh Office will look afresh at the problem.

Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we shall shortly be publishing "Roads in Wales" and our plans for the future. I note what he says, but the heads of the valleys road is extremely good and following my right hon. Friend's Valleys initiative, there will be further improvements in the roads in the valleys.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that county councils have the same sense of urgent priority for the construction of roads for tourism and other industries as the Welsh Office has so commendably shown in its construction programme?

Mr. Roberts: Local authorities have some £19·5 million available to them this year. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings, and I hope that local authorities will look to their roads, as he has so kindly said that the Welsh Office is doing.

Mr. Livsey: When will the Secretary of State publish proposals in "Roads in Wales", which is due this year? Will he pay particular attention to the importance of north-south communications in Wales and the fact that British Coal is holding up an important section of the A470 from Pentrebach to Cefn-coed-y-cymmer in the constituency of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? Will he ensure that that scheme goes ahead at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that it will interest the hon. Gentleman to know that since 1979 over £87 million has been spent on the A470, and it is our policy to undertake selective improvements on that road. We are expecting to start on the A4060 at Merthyr, subject to completion of preparatory work and the availability of resources.

Tourism

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his current estimates for the number of tourists and the value of tourism to Wales and the number of overseas visitors to the Principality; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The Wales tourist board estimates that in 1987 approximately 12 million tourists visited the Principality and that, within this figure, some 570,000 were from overseas. Expenditure data for 1987 are not all yet available, but are likely to show a significant increase on the £600 million estimated to have been spent by staying visitors in 1986.

Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he satisfied with the reliability of the tourism statistics for the Principality? Will he comment on the resources available to the efficient Wales tourist board?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is some concern about the quality of data on tourism

statistics, so the Government have commissioned Panell, Kerr and Forster to review the statistics, and its report is expected shortly. Since 1983 overall net resources for the Wales tourist board have risen by 90 per cent., and this year it has some £9·21 million at its disposal, of which £3·32 million is for section 4 assistance.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that of the tourists coming to Wales those from overseas represent only half the proportion that they constitute in the United Kingdom in general? If anything is to he done about that, there needs to be a massive assault on this market. Can he confirm that the WDA will be allowed to work in conjunction with the Wales tourist board on projects of importance to tourism in Wales, including helping to fund the opening of offices outside Wales in places like Stratford, Oxford and Bath, which could be of relevance in attracting overseas visitors to Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I can confirm the latter point. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are concerned about having effective arrangements for overseas visitors, and these have been achieved by my right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the British Tourist Authority. As a result, people with specialist knowledge of Wales are in key overseas locations such as Frankfurt, Dublin and New York.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister will accept that we all welcome extra tourists to our country, but does he recognise that, nationally, four of the 10 lowest-paid occupations for women are within the tourist industry? Is he aware that, of all the regions, Wales has the lowest paid employees in hotels and catering, the sort of coolie economy-type of wages about which the Secretary of State was talking? As he is thinking of expanding that industry, which is dominated by part-time and seasonal work, what action does he intend to take to protect the conditions of work and the pay of those people in the industry, or does he expect them to continue to work for a pittance?

Mr. Roberts: Tourism is one of the most important industries and is, of course, a substantial employer. Some 90,000 people are employed in tourism and my impression is that the employers pay what the industry can afford. That, of course, will continue under whichever form of Government we have.

Schools (Visits)

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales he has visited from his appointment up to 13 June.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has visited two schools and I have visited five schools in the past 12 months.

Mr. Jones: Can I persuade the Minister to expand fund provision for nursery schooling in Wales, bearing in mind the recent cuts throughout Wales, particularly in Clwyd? May I remind him of the Prime Minister's famous commitment in the 1970s to nursery schooling for all?
Does he know that tomorrow the local education authority in Clwyd will consider the closure of Bistre nursery school in Buckley? Hundreds of parents are deeply disappointed at the level of nursery provision in Clwyd and parents of children at that school are very upset. How will the Minister help?

Mr. Roberts: I understand that the proposals by Clwyd education authority to reduce nursery provision was rejected at a meeting of the county council on 7 June and that was why I told the right hon. Gentleman in the Welsh Grand Committee that it was a matter for local education authorities, as is the provision of nursery education throughout Wales. About 70 per cent. of our children under five are in nursery schools or classes. That is a high average compared with England and other parts of the world.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that when the Minister visited various schools in Wales he met many children who spoke Welsh and that he is aware that many parents in Wales are afraid that the Government will not introduce a new Welsh Language Act. Will he give an assurance today to the people of Wales that the new Welsh Language Act will be introduced in 1988?

Mr. Roberts: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows the contents of the Education Reform Bill and the Welsh provisions in that Bill, under which Welsh will be a core curriculum subject along with English, mathematics and science in Welsh-speaking schools and a foundation subject in other schools. For the first time in history Welsh has a statutory place in the school curriculum. If I am not mistaken, surely that kind of advance was among the proposals being pressed for in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that, although education authorities have a responsibility, as he suggested in his earlier reply, he has a responsibility to encourage local authorities to provide a standard of excellence? In view of the legal decisions now being taken, will he assure the House that he will speed up the process to enable South Glamorgan local authority to provide a sixth-form college, which it is seeking to do, but which has been held up by the Welsh Office in recent months?

Mr. Roberts: It is possible that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of the legal proceedings to which he referred. The court case revolved around concern by the Department, which was shared by the objectors, that South Glamorgan county council's procedures might be invalid. The High Court has now determined that the procedures were valid and, accordingly, my right hon. Friend will make his decision as soon as possible.

Single European Market

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission research on the impact on jobs in Wales of the European Community's proposals for the creation of a single market.

Mr. Peter Walker: We shall be conducting a considerable campaign to ensure that Welsh businesses take full advantage of the opportunities of the single European market, so as to improve job opportunities.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that on the whole the Government and the Commission have taken a rather complacent attitude to the possibility of job creation in the regions? A Minister at the Department of Employment answered a similar question and said that his Department was not prepared to predict whether there would be job increases in the regions. Only today the Henley Centre for

Forecasting was prepared to show some enterprise and initiative in predicting that the investment opportunities of the single market will increase the divide between north and south. Should not the Welsh Office be playing a far more dynamic role in trying to ensure that jobs are brought to Wales as a result of the creation of the market?

Mr. Walker: The figures that I gave earlier about inward investment are connected with the desire of overseas firms to have a place in the European market, and they have chosen Wales as that place. It is due to the activities of the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency that over recent times Wales has had a much larger proportion of inward investment than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: May I put it to my right hon. Friend—I do so on the information that the members of the Select Committee on Welsh affairs gleaned during their recent visit to Japan and Korea—that it would not be inappropriate to review the efforts that are being made abroad to promote awareness of all the changes that will come after 1992? That information is as important abroad as at home to the many investors who are contemplating setting up in Wales on the basis that it will be the best place for selling into the European market.

Mr. Walker: There is a great deal to be obtained from the two countries mentioned by my hon. Friend. There is also considerable inward investment to be obtained from the United States and from parts of Europe other than Great Britain. We are organising a considerable worldwide campaign to ensure that the advantages of Wales—for example, the regional development policy, the activities of the Welsh Development Agency and the willingness of the unions to collaborate—are brought to the attention of those who can take advantage of Wales as their location for European business.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission and the EEC have today produced a joint document on policies for under five-year-olds? I am sure he will agree that an important plank of opportunity under the Single European Act will be equal opportunities for men and women. Is he aware that the report criticises the United Kingdom Government, in particular, for their policies on equal opportunities, the lack of provision for the under-fives and the lack of implementation of the directive on parental leave? Will he study this further?

Mr. Walker: I shall study it further.

Steel Industry (Productivity)

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on productivity gains made over the last five years in the steel industry in Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am delighted to say that productivity in the steel industry has massively improved in recent years due to high investment and the collaboration of those involved. The British Steel Corporation's production of liquid steel and coil was higher in 1987 than it was in 1979 in spite of the industry employing nearly 30,000 fewer people in the Principality.
As for the private sector, the successful flotation of Allied Steel and Wire is, I think, clear evidence of an energetic, growing and forward-looking industry whose employees have full confidence in the future.

Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that splendid answer. Does he agree that it is a tribute to the £400 million investment programme in the Port Talbot steel works, for example, and provides an excellent springboard for further productivity gains as the steel industry is privatised?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. I think that the steel industry in Wales is in a strong position. It is one of the finest steel industries throughout Europe and it is confident about the future.

Mr. Foot: If the Secretary of State is so enthusiastic about the achievements of steel workers in Wales, as he and everyone else has every right to be, why does he not listen to what they say about keeping the industry in public hands?

Mr. Walker: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that those employed in the steel industry will be eager and pleased to participate in privatisation.

Sir John Stradling Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree—I am sure that he will, but not because of any discussions beforehand—that the steel industry in Wales can welcome wholeheartedly something that I have wanted to see for a long time, the abolition of the quota system, because we are now competitive and can compete with the world?

Mr. Walker: Yes. As I have said, there are few steel industries in Europe more confident about the future than the Welsh steel industry.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the answer to the question is that the productivity gains made by the steel industry in Wales have come about because the steel workers in Wales refused to listen to Operation Slimline introduced by the Government in 1979, which halved the work force in the steel industry in Wales and halved output as well? That means that there are no productivity gains at all. The extraordinarily good performance of the steel industry in Wales since 1979 has taken place, if the Secretary of State looks at the facts, simply because the workers refused to abide by Operation Slimline.

Mr. Walker: The labour force has not been halved. It has been cut by almost two thirds.

Welsh National Opera

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about funding for a suitable venue for performances by the Welsh National Opera in north Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Representations have been received from Aberconwy borough council, the Wales tourist board, and members of the public for funding the development of an arts, leisure and convention centre at Llandudno, which would provide a venue for performances by the Welsh National Opera. There have also been

representations by Rhuddlan borough council for a project at Rhyl, which might include provision for a theatre.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not need to tell my hon. Friend that the Welsh National Opera company is the finest in Britain and one of the finest in Europe. In view of that, will he give what support and help he can to either or both schemes to provide a regular place for the opera to perform in north Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I regret as much as anyone the absence of a suitable venue in north Wales with the facilities required for companies like the Welsh National Opera company. Having said "like the Welsh National Opera company'', I believe that that company is incomparable and of considerable excellence. Yes, we certainly hope that a centre will be established in the north for the Welsh National Opera company, but I cannot prejudge whether that will be in Llandudno or Rhuddlan, except perhaps to tell my hon. Friend that Rhuddlan borough council's approach for urban development grant for its project has been discussed with my Department. The council has been informed that it is not considered to be eligible. Discussions are still going on with Aberconwy.

Homelessness

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are at present homeless in (a) Ynys Môn, (b) Gwynedd and (c) Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: During the period 1 October 1987 to 31 December 1987, the latest quarter for which figures are available, six homelessness cases were accepted by the local authority in Ynys Môn, 69 cases were accepted in Gwynedd as a whole and 1,239 cases were accepted throughout the Principality.

Mr. Jones: If local authorities are obliged to dispose of their housing stock when the Housing Bill is enacted, will the Minister tell us who will assume statutory responsibility for the homeless?

Mr. Grist: Statutory responsibility will remain with the local authorities and it will be up to them to carry out those duties. They will use their powers in a way similar to the way they use them now.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister accept that homelessness is still about 25 per cent. higher than it was when the Government came to office, on the basis of the official figures, which are lower than those of Shelter? Will he accept Opposition warnings that the recent decision in relation to the social security changes to pay bed and breakfast for youngsters a week in arrears will mean that, as landlords refuse to accept the arrangement, more, not fewer, of our young people will be made homeless?

Mr. Grist: I do not accept the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's assertion, as the numbers have risen by about 600, which is about 12 per cent., since 1979. The 1987 figures in comparison to those for 1986 fell by another 700. With regard to his second point, he will have to table a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Single European Market

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the action being taken by his Department to ensure that the Principality will fully benefit from the creation of the single European market and the construction of the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Peter Walker: My Department will be active in bringing home to the business community in Wales the significance of the single European market and the opportunities that will be created by the Channel tunnel. I have already written to over 3,000 companies, drawing their attention to the single European market, and I have sent them a check list of action. I shall personally take part in two major seminars in the business community in Wales, in Cardiff in December and in Mold in November.

Mr. Raffan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. Does he agree that the optimism over 1992 must not be allowed to cloud the fact that gains from freer trade will occur only if there are losers as well as gainers? Will he get the blunt message across to Welsh firms that if they are not to be losers they must become more competitive, improve management and remove inefficient work practices? Will he do his utmost to ensure that Welsh companies can benefit from the contracts placed for the construction of the Channel tunnel?

Mr. Walker: As to my hon. Friend's latter point concerning the contract phase of the Channel tunnel, which is of course a very big project, to assist Welsh companies to benefit during the construction phase I have established a liaison section in my industry department with responsibility for informing appropriate Welsh companies of opportunities and potential contracts. To date, in excess of 100 potential contracts have been notified to more than 100 companies in Wales. As to the importance of competitiveness, those who will succeed most in the total European market will be those companies that are the most effective, competitive and efficient. I hope that those in Welsh industry will achieve those objectives.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman know what prospects there are of European money for the Data Magnetics company in my constituency, where 168 jobs are involved, and where the receiver has moved in? Can he say whether there is any prospect of that company receiving a boost? Does he agree that if that company is given the funding that it needs it will be a world beater?

Mr. Walker: It is difficult for me to comment when matters are in the hands of the official receiver. I can only express the view that I hope very much that ways will be found by the official receiver of handling the situation so that work may continue and prospects are created. The Welsh Development Agency and others are certainly in close contact with the company.

Hospital Development

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what moneys he is making available for hospital development (a) in the Rhondda and (b) elsewhere in Mid Glamorgan over the next five years.

Mr. Grist: Mid Glamorgan health authority's discretionary capital allocation for the current year is £5·7 million—an increase of nearly 21 per cent. over last year's

allocation. It is for the authority to determine its priorities for the use of those funds. Future years' allocations will depend on the outcome of annual public expenditure discussions.

Mr. Rogers: I am absolutely appalled by the Minister's answer, in that the needs of the Rhondda and Taff-Ely area have recently been assessed at more than £50 million worth of necessary capital building. If Mid Glamorgan is to have only £5·7 million in the next year and an indeterminate amount over the next five years, it means that one of the most economically and socially deprived areas of the United Kingdom will have to wait an inordinate time for basic hospital facilities.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows that representations concerning the proposed development of hospital services in Rhondda and Taff-Ely closed on 11 May. Consultations on those representations are taking place at this very minute. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, as I pointed out, the increase this year is 21 per cent. on capital funding and 28·5 per cent. on revenue funding in real terms since this Government came to office. That does not show an ignorance of the conditions in the valleys.

Mr. Rowlands: Can the Minister give us reason for any hope over the reopening of St. Tydfil's? Is he aware that, based on current performance, there is no way that the Mid Glamorgan health authority will be able to re-finance the reopening of that unit? Is there any hope that he will give any assistance in the current financial year to help achieve that?

Mr. Grist: As I said in my original reply, it lies with the district health authority to decide how to manage its finances. The fact is that it has over the years failed to implement the cost improvement programmes, which have been undertaken in other parts of the country, with sufficient urgency and efficiency. We look for that increased urgency and efficiency, and then the hon. Gentleman may find that his unit will be reopened.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister recognise the problems that exist in the eastern part of the county bordering Gwent, in the valleys of Rhymney and Islwyn, having a population of 150,000 people without a district general hospital of their own? What priority is given to a district general hospital for that area in the Department's long-term planning, and will the Minister give an assurance that funds will not be available for development in south Glamorgan on the basis that it will meet the needs of the valleys?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The question of hospitals within his own health authority's area lies with that authority. He is right in saying that services in south Glamorgan, as in Newport, serve certain patients in the valleys. That is an accepted fact of life. However, the whole question of social deprivation in Mid Glamorgan is understood, and it is worth pointing out that the formula for social deprivation is kept constantly under review. A working party chaired by the general manager of Mid Glamorgan health authority is considering whether any changes should be made in respect of the allowance for social deprivation and sparsity.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give you notice that in view of that absolutely appalling


answer from the Minister I wish to raise in an Adjournment debate the matter of hospitals in Mid Glamorgan?

Revenue Grant System

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any representations from Welsh local authorities regarding the operation of the proposed revenue grant system in Wales.

Mr. Grist: We are engaged in regular discussions with the local authority associations about the operation of the new grant system.

Mr. Murphy: First, now that the Welsh districts have come up with the precise figure for the implementation of the poll tax in Wales, and since the Minister has recently told the House that the Government will make provision in the revenue suport grant for such implementation, will he tell us when his right hon. Friends will announce to the Welsh districts the revenue support grant to help those districts? Secondly, precisely what percentage of the £16 million that it will cost to implement the tax will be given by the Government in that grant to help the Welsh district councils?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will find the answer to his first question in the second, and the answer to the first question is, at present, as soon as may be.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Bishops (Stipend)

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have received about the stipends of bishops.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The commissioners have received no representations about the stipends of bishops.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that lack of representations can scarcely be a reflection of the level of stipends, which is not excessive, and does he further agree that it is much more likely to be a reflection of public concern about the nature of the leadership offered by certain bishops and the widespread public concern about the present system of the appointment of bishops, which often places the Prime Minister in an invidious position?

Mr. Alison: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to agree with literally every pronouncement that any bishop makes, whether about matters relating to the Church or the state. However, he knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has final responsibility in the rather intricate process of the choice of bishops. I will draw my hon. Friend's comments to her notice.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while baiting bishops is a popular pastime in this place, it would be proper behaviour to take a raincheck on such activities, at least until after the Lambeth conference?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman's mention of the word raincheck has drawn my attention to the activities of Crow Dog in the state of Ohio. Our bishops are a great deal more reliable than that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that bishops are often baited and that a great many of their entirely constructive and helpful spiritual ministries go largely unreported.

Arson Damage

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many buildings within the control of the Church Commissioners have been damaged by arson over any recent convenient period; arid what is the security policy in relation to ecclesiastical buildings within their control.

Mr. Alison: Isolated incidents of arson have been recorded over recent years on the commissioners' farms, which are in the direct care of their tenants. The commissioners are not directly responsible for the care of churches, the security of which is normally under the charge of the incumbent churchwardens and parochial church councils. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman deeply deplores the arson attack on St. Peter's, Eaton square, last October, and a recent church fire in the City of London, which was also attributed to arson.

Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of the example of St. Peter's, Eaton square, of which I gave warning to the right hon. Gentleman, what is the advice of the commissioners to incumbents and other ecclesiastical authorities? Is it to keep the churches open for worship or, from fear of arson, to lock doors which hitherto have not been locked?

Mr. Alison: Broadly, that advice is not strictly ad vice that should be tendered by the Commissioners, although we clearly have an indirect interest in terms of the financial help that we give to the dioceses and parishes. However, the advice and information that we receive is that parochial church councils all strive to keep churches as open as possible. Although incidents of theft and vandalism have occurred in 45 per cent. of all parish churches in every part of the country in the past five to 10 years, nevertheless, the policy of keeping churches open is one that we wish to continue.

Lambeth Conference

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners will be contributing in cash and in kind towards the Lambeth conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The Church Commissioners will be providing around £160,000, including the cost of seconded staff.

Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much this House wishes success to the Lambeth conference? Is he further aware that I welcome the appointment of the Archdeacon of York and hope that more people like him are appointed as bishops? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Church Commissioners will pay neither in cash nor in kind any


contribution to the Methodist conference, which appears to have become merely a political politburo rather than an ecclesiastical gathering?

Mr. Alison: I, too, applaud the appointment of Canon Austin as the Archdeacon of York. I am not answerable for the findings of the Methodist conference, although as a Conservative I am bound to say that the sweeping criticisms of the Government that derived from that source filled me with some dismay. I look forward to studying carefully the factual basis of those criticisms.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Serjeant at Arms Department

Mr. Allen: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will take steps to initiate a review by the Staff Inspector of the work of the Serjeant at Arms Department in respect of the efficient provision of facilities for right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Alan Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): There are no plans for such a review at present.

Mr. Allen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an increasing number of Members work full-time in this place, so that there are greater needs in the constituencies, often met from the secretarial allowance? Do not individual Members now rely even more upon the services provided by the Serjeant at Arms Department? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Staff Inspector to consider two matters? First, should not one Officer of the House be made responsible for Gallery tickets, guides and tours, so that hon. Members can arrange such matters conveniently? Secondly, should there not be a review of facilities for basic shopping for those hon. Members who have to travel a long way?

Mr. Beith: There is generally wide appreciation of much of the work done by the Serjeant at Arms Department. The arrangements for tickets and guides fall beyond the remit of the Staff Inspector. It is something that the Services Committee might wish to consider, and I shall invite it to do so if the hon. Gentleman would care to put further proposals to the Serjeant at Arms. The possibility of a supermarket on the premises goes rather wide and might give rise to some rather interesting discussion in the House.

Mr. Latham: How much longer will the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod allow large numbers of our fellow citizens who want to see their Parliament to stand in the rain in a queue?

Mr. Beith: That is an interesting point, and one that the Services Committee might consider and keep under review. The hon. Gentleman's comments will be drawn to its notice.

Refreshment Department

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of

Commons Commission, what provisions are made for the welfare of staff in the Refreshment Department during the summer months.

Mr. Beith: In order to alleviate the worst effects on staff of the hot and humid weather experienced during the summer months considerable improvements have been made in recent years to the ventilation and air-flow arrangements in almost all the Refreshment Department's kitchens and public rooms. As a result only one trading point —s Bar—has no form of mechanical ventilation or air conditioning. Further improvements are planned.

Mr. Banks: I should have thought that there was sufficient hot air circulating in Annie's Bar, such that any special provision would not be warranted. In view of some of the conversations that emanate from that Bar, would it not be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to consider closing it?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this place is one of the smelliest and sweatiest that I have ever worked in, and that it is especially so for the staff? Are not the provisions for staff in this "Upstairs Downstairs" world of the Palace wholly inappropriate? Quite frankly, they should not be tolerated. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make further recommendations to make the working conditions for staff much better.

Mr. Beith: There are, indeed, further proposals to improve working conditions for Refreshment Department staff. More that £750,000 was spent on a scheme to improve the ventilation and air conditioning of the main kitchens. Half that sum came from the Refreshment Department's trading surplus, to which Members themselves contributed. Nevertheless, more work is required to improve conditions for our staff. It was, after all, to Politicians and not to people working in kitchens that the advice was given, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Cash Limits

Mr. Alton: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the policy of the House of Commons Commission as to the application of cash limits to expenditure undertaken on behalf of the House.

Mr. Beith: Cash limits do not apply to the Vote for House of Commons: Administration, which is the only Vote for which the Commission is directly responsible. The Commission decided in 1982 not to impose a formal cash limit system of its own, but over the years it has approved a series of measures designed to tighten the control of expenditure by Departments of the House without pre-empting the right of the House to take major decisions on its own facilities and services.

Mr. Alton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has the Commission been under pressure from the Government to impose strict cash limits? Does he agree that such limits would have the effect of gagging potential critics, which would be undesirable for the conduct of the affairs of the House?

Mr. Beith: The Commission, throughout its history—I have served on it since it was created nine years ago—has


resisted any attempt that would have inhibited the House's ability to carry out its duties by reducing its ability to undertake legitimate expenditure. The Commission has, however, sought to give the Government reasonable notice of public expenditure requirements, wherever possible, while always insisting that the House should decide on the services it requires, and the Commission makes provision accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Bill of Rights (Tercentenary)

Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the progress of arrangements to mark the tercentenary of the Bill of Rights.

The Leader President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Arrangements for Parliament's celebration of this tercentenary have been approved by the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker on the advice of a Committee of Members of both Houses. I understand that the main components of the celebrations will be the presentation of Addresses to Her Majesty the Queen in Westminster Hall on the morning of Wednesday 20 July, and an exhibition in the Banqueting house in Whitehall, to be opened on Wednesday 29 June by Lord Hailsham. Her Majesty will also visit the exhibition on 20 July. There will be associated publications, including material for schools. It is hoped that many Members and their spouses will be able to attend the ceremony in Westminster Hall and the exhibition.

Mr. Allen: As the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the individual against the oppressive power of the state, would not the best form of celebration be to have another one?

Mr. Wakeham: We believe that such a radical constitutional change could proceed only on the basis of agreement between the parties. There is no evidence of substantial support for the idea on either side of the House and I think that a review would be premature and unnecessary. A written constitution would have to be entrenched, which would weaken the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. If legislation conflicted with it, the constitution would have to be interpreted by some kind of supreme or constitutional court, which would push judges into the political arena and might endanger their justified reputation for impartiality.

Research Assistants

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many research assistants are currently registered as working for right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Wakeham: A total of 592 passes have been issued to all categories of research assistants. The Register of Members' Secretaries and Research Assistants records only those in possession of a photo-identity pass and who pursue any relevant gainful occupation other than that for which the pass is issued. It does not differentiate between secretaries and research assistants.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are too many research assistants cluttering

up the place? Is he aware that some of them are simply parliamentary lobbyists getting their telephone calls on the cheap, while others are doing party political work which should be funded from outside the House? Now that the opposition parties have had a 70 per cent. pay rise, will my right hon. Friend conduct a cull of research assistants and ensure that their activities are restricted to genuine parliamentary work?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend will be aware of the resolution of the House on 10 November 1987 which charged the Services Committee to consider the control of access to the precincts of the House, and in particular whether the numbers of Members' personal staff with access to the House should be reduced. The Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee has now completed its inquiry and hopes to publish a report before the summer recess. We had better wait for that.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I tell the Lord President that the money that goes to Opposition parties does not work its way through to hard-working Back Benchers? Many of us rely very much on the excellent efforts and work that we get from our research assistants. I hope that the Lord President will disown those grossly insulting remarks made by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and welcome the contribution to the efficient working of this place that research assistants provide.

Mr. Wakeham: I am delighted to hear the first part of the question. It would be grossly improper if the Short money did work its way through to Back Benchers, because the Opposition Front Bench and the leaders of all parties have to sign a certificate to say that it is not paid to Back Benchers, so we are in agreement on the first part of the question. I certainly recognise the contribution that secretaries and research assistants make to Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has a considerable point. Parliament will have to consider the numbers and whether access perhaps should be limited.

Mr. Fallon: How many research assistants are employed by the Leader of the Opposition? However many there are, should there not be more?

Mr. Wakeham: Perhaps one can have enough of a good thing.

Prime Minister's Press Secretary (Briefings)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to make further facilities available to the Prime Minister's press secretary for briefings in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Wakeham: I have no such plans.

Mr. Dalyell: Since the revealing book by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) called "Heseltine" tells us that he knows a great deal from his incarnation as a Chief Whip, will the Leader of the House tell us whether it was shortage of accommodation that made it difficult for Mr. Bernard Ingham to communicate to the Prime Minister throughout 14 days what the Select Committee report in paragraphs 187 and 188 said Mr. Ingham knew about the Westland affair? Has he seen that in today's paper, yet again, the Government are described as playing fast and loose with the truth?

Mr. Wakeham: I had nothing further to say on the matter before I read the book by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), which I read last September while I was waiting for my son to be born in hospital. Having read the book, I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Hayward: Is my right hon. Friend considering the provision of extra facilities for the Leader of the Opposition, so that the members of the Shadow Cabinet can communicate with him rather than ringing the Press Association?

Mr. Wakeham: The extra Short money that has been allocated should enable them to conduct their business in a proper and efficient manner, if that is what they plan to do.

Mr. Winnick: Since the Prime Minister's press secretary is recognised as being virtually the deputy Prime Minister, and certainly carries far more authority than the Leader of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the facilities available to him here are sufficient, bearing in mind his authority in the realms of government?

Mr. Wakeham: Cutting all the trimmings out, the Prime Minister's press secretary comes here from time to time to give briefings to the Lobby, when invited by the Lobby.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Lord President tell us how many passes to the House of Commons are possessed by people in the No. 10 Downing street press office? Do they count as part of the 140 passes to the Press Gallery held by departmental press officers? Will he further tell us whether the Government intend to conduct any inquiry into the activity of Government press officers in this building, who

seem to devote a great deal of their time not so much to putting over the Government's story, but in attempting to rubbish the Opposition?

Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have something to say on that subject, but most of what he said is pretty misleading. I do not believe that it is at all the case that Government information officers do anything other than conduct themselves in the highest traditions of the Government and the Civil Service, under this Government and the Labour Government. I do not believe that such an inquiry is required.

Palace of Westminster (Refurbishment)

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects the uncleaned parts of the exterior of the parliamentary building to be refurbished; and what cost; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: Work on the remaining unrestored exterior stonework will take approximately five years to complete at an estimated cost of £6 million to £8 million.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be some continuing damage to the uncleaned stonework in view of the crumbling nature of the cleaned stonework, discovered by the cleaners? Does he agree that it is aesthetically offensive for the Victoria Tower to remain uncleaned, as against the beautiful and cleaned exterior of the remainder of the Palace?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree that we need to get on with the work as efficiently and effectively as we can. I agree also that the money being spent is not only to clean the fabric of the stonework but to restore it to a safe condition because some stones have fallen.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The worst ever balance of payment crisis, which has just been announced for the month of May.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that some of us have been cautioning for some time about the way in which the balance of payments has been worsening since the 1987 election boom. The deficit of £1·2 billion represents the worst figures in Britain's history. While the Prime Minister spends her time gallivanting around the world preaching prosperity and telling other countries that Britain is going through a boom, the truth is that the figures show, as have others during 1988, that the country is bleeding to death.
In this year's Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there would be a balance of payments deficit this year of £4 billion. In the five months to May, we have already had a deficit of £5·2 billion and we are heading for a deficit of between £10 billion and £12 billion. While the Prime Minister is constantly preaching prudence to others, she is presiding over a pawnshop economy. A balance of payments deficit of £12 billion is only the first instalment of having to pay for the so-called free-for-all, entrepreneurial, market force philosophy of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet. Some of our chief competitors, such as West Germany and Japan, have surpluses between them of $120 billion, while Britain's deficit gets even worse. It will get increasingly worse as North sea oil runs out.
The debate is important because interest rates will rise as a result of the deficit and that will bring about further inflation and the spiral of unemployment will continue once again. The figures show that the Government have been fiddling the invisible payments so much so that during 1987 they gave a figure of £600 million to £700 million, and that has now been scaled down to £400 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his time. He must now bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Skinner: We want the debate so that the Prime Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and answer for the mess. That is why it is important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The announcement of a deficit of £1·2 billion in last month's balance of payments.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, the decision I have to make in relation to an application under Standing Order No. 20 is whether the matter should have precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Housing Bill

[4TH DAY]

As amended ( in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Clause 66

POWER TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Amendment No. 313 proposed [14 June]: In page 47, line 45, leave out 'person' and insert
'statutory authority or registered charity'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: With the leave of the House, I recall that on 14 June the House was discussing amendment No. 313, which I had moved some time before. We now revert to that important topic, which relates to housing action trusts.
When we hear about housing action, we all think that the Government are about to make some great improvements, but, as the House knows, HATs are statutory pawns in the Bill that will enable large areas of municipal estate to be transferred to a so-called housing action trust nominated directly by the Secretary of State. HATs will not only take over properties on favourable terms—probably about half price—but will have planning powers.
I am fortunate in having been selected by you, Mr. Speaker, to move further amendments. We shall proceed to those at a fairly rapid rate. It was a pity that the Leader of the House interrupted proceedings as early as 7 pm on 14 June, which prevented us from making progress. If he had not, I would have been making this speech at about the time that he was speaking to the House. Why the Government moved the closure is a mystery. Had we continued, we could have made more progress, and I am sure that the House, including Ministers, would have been happy to do so.
Amendment No. 313 relates to HATs' powers to make grants. HATs will be able to acquire large areas of municipal property at half price without proper consultation with those whose tenancies are to be transferred. Early in the morning during the debate last week, the Secretary of State said that he would be sending letters to people in HAT areas and that they would have a chance to reply. Moreover, the Bill states that whatever action we took would be legalised by the House as consultation. We had a dispute about whether that was retrospective legislation; Opposition Members said that it was, but he said that it was not because there was fair warning. We said that would not be fair warning because we did not know what he would say in his letters to prospective tenants of the HATs, nor did we know the information that he would give or the offers that he would make.
HATs not only take over property, have planning powers and powers of a public health authority, but are empowered by the Bill to do almost anything they Bike. Clause 58 defines the primary objects of a housing trust as the effective management of housing and


to encourage diversity in the interests by virtue of which housing accommodation in the area is occupied"—․
in other words, to increase the range of ownership and management. Under clause 58(3)(d), a HAT can
carry on any business or undertaking".
HATs can acquire land compulsorily or by agreement. The HAT is acting only under the authority of central Government and replacing not only the local authority but local authority councillors' accountability to the local authority and their constituents. Because HATs can carry on any business or undertaking, they can make grants to any business or undertaking under the terms of clause 66, subsection (1) of which states:
For the purpose of achieving its objects a housing action trust may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, give financial assistance to any person.
My amendment deletes "person" and substitutes
statutory authority or registered charity".
The enormous powers wielded by a housing action trust can be used as patronage. It is clear that a trust, the members of which do not necessarily have to reside in the area and which will, in a way, be a central Government-appointed oligarchy, will have tremendous powers. It will have the powers of planning and compulsory acquisition of land and will be able to hand out money for virtually any purpose that it believes will improve the environment. A housing trust will have the power, under clause 58(1)(d)
generally to secure or facilitate the improvement of living conditions in the area and the social conditions and general environment of the area.
These bodies have considerable scope to display patronage.
I hope that, even if the Secretary of State cannot agree to the amendment, which he may consider too restricting, he will give some thought to amendment No. 399, which has not been selected. It requires a housing action trust to keep publicly available a register detailing grants and moneys made available. Some days ago, I dealt with the way in which the London Docklands development corporation had handed out money left, right and centre to ease its task. We feel that much of that money has not been properly distributed. This approach displaces the local authority, which is strapped for money, and introduces an undemocratic, unaccountable body which is wholly dependent on the Secretary of State and wholly under his control. The purpose of amendment No. 313 is to ensure that wide-scale handouts are confined to statutory authorities or registered charities. I hope that a register of such assistance will be made available for public inspection.

Mr. David Winnick: This continuation of the Housing Bill debate will be of particular interest to a number of people because tonight "World in Action" will reveal the activities of one of the most notorious private landlords, Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten, who has been charged a number of times with violent offences against tenants. This obnoxious landlord—one of the worst—has been quoted in the press as saying, and it will probably be repeated tonight on television;
I am probably ruthless and I am probably violent.
That is the type of landlord who will undoubtedly come to the fore because of the Bill.
The amendment's aim is to tighten the moneys and grants made by a housing action trust. The formation of

HATs is undoubtedly a blow to democratic local government. Their members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will not be subject to any form of election. Tenants will be transferred to HATs from local authority ownership without the need for them to vote or give their approval. There will be no system of voting, as is provided for in other parts of the Bill. Local authorities will simply be told by the Secretary of State that a certain number of their properties are to be transferred to housing action trusts. Tenants will have no say whatsoever. If such bodies are to be established, they should be under some control and the money should be made available to statutory bodies and registered charities.
I may be asked why I referred to Mr. van Hoogstraten. Although such people will not be involved in housing action trusts, they will be very much involved in all aspects of the privately rented sector.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my hon. Friend intend to ask the Secretary of State whether Mr. van Hoogstraten has signed the anti-social landlords' charter that the Secretary of State and his departmental officials have been so anxiously trying to draw up during the last 12 weeks?

Mr. Winnick: That will be an interesting question to put to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. Our warnings about the type of private landlords who are likely to come to the fore—the type of gangsters and ruthless people who did not die when Rachman died in the early 1960s—are highlighted once again by the case of this notorious thug and gangster—I repeat, thug and gangster—who has probably become a millionaire by exploiting tenants. He uses violence now. He will have even more of an incentive to use violence when the Bill becomes law.
If hon. Members doubt my words and believe that I am exaggerating, they ought to watch "World in Action" this evening. It reveals the type of ruthless, gangster landlord who will be willing to exploit every possible measure in the Bill when it becomes law to harass and intimidate his tenants and use thuggery and violence against them.

Mr. George Howarth: There is one way in which private landlords could become involved in housing action trusts. It may not be deliberate; it could almost be by accident. If owner-occupation, which is to be promoted by housing action trusts, fails—it will certainly fail in some of our urban areas—that will provide an opportunity for private landlords to become involved. There is a serious case in my area, involving the Stockbridge village trust. A private landlord is trying to move in, precisely because owner-occupation has failed.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has dealt with the very essence, in many respects, of housing action trusts. Housing action trusts will not be permanent. Properties will not be kept under their permanent management and control. Within two or three years, or even less, such properties will be transferred, but they will not be returned to local authorities, as they ought to be. They will be sold off for owner-occupation or they will be sold to various organisations or private landlords.
The Minister ought to give guarantees about the grants that are to be made by housing action trusts. They have to ensure that the type of abuses to which I have referred will not occur. However, I do not believe that any Minister can


give such a guarantee, bearing in mind the incentives for the type of thuggery and violence that landlords such as Mr. van Hoogstraten are only too pleased to use. The Minister has a great deal to reply to on this amendment. That applies to other amendments that are to be debated later.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I have to admit that I find it hard to imagine what more can be added to the extremely wide-ranging debate that we had a few days ago when we discussed this amendment. When I replied to the points raised by hon. Members then, I explained that housing action trusts will be able to use their power to give financial assistance only with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
My Department will issue a financial memorandum to the housing action trusts setting out in detail the principles and circumstances in which assistance will be given. There are many worthy purposes for which I envisage the housing action trusts offering financial assistance. These are, for example, the grant-aiding of environmental works to help to set up workshops or training schemes and improvements by householders to their homes. I cannot believe that Opposition Members do not want to see useful activities such as those being actively promoted and encouraged by the housing action trusts. As provided in schedule 6, which the House recently agreed to amend, full details of all financial assistance given by each housing action trust will be set out in the annual report submitted to Parliament.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roe: No. I have already replied in detail to these points and think that we should get on.
I hope that the House will agree that the attempt by the amendment to restrict the housing action trusts' financial assistance to statutory authorities and registered charities is pointless. As I have explained, statutory authorities and registered charities are covered in general terms in clause 66. I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 67

DIRECTIONS AS TO EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 314, in page 48, line 29, at end insert
'which shall be published by him in the London Gazette'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 333.

Mr. Spearing: An absence of cries from the Opposition when the Minister finished speaking to the last amendment should not be taken as acquiescence. The Minister's reply was quite unacceptable and has a bearing on this amendment. Clause 67 says:
(1) In the exercise of its functions, a housing action trust shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State.
(2) Directions given by the Secretary of State may be of a general or particular character and may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions.
The Minister spoke about the sort of directions or codes that may be issued. I am not sure whether grants of money would come under that heading, but I hope that they will and that they will be published.
The Minister said that housing action trusts could offer financial assistance for training. She seemed to be saying that a housing action trust shall have scope for some form of educational activity or technical training. We know that these housing action trusts are vehicles to replace local government. They will become not only planning authorities, but local health authorities. It is quite clear from what the Minister said that in some respects the Government expect them to become training and education authorities as well. That is all the more reason for any directions made by the Secretary of State to be published.
Publication can take all sorts of forms. The House has known of cases in which we get a retrospective statement by a Minister that has been in the Library for months. We may get publication in an obscure circular, which goes only to town halls. I am suggesting publication in the London Gazette, because it can be perused. It is a regular publication and all will be above board.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend consider it odd that these bodies should have power to take away without any voting or agreement by the local authorities properties owned by local authorities? No power is being given to local authorities to take over properties owned by the person that I mentioned, who admits to violence and worse against his tenants, Mr. van Hoogstraten. Why are the Government so determined to carry out this vendetta against local authorities?
I note that the Minister is mumbling. Since we cannot get an explanation from the Minister, I am asking whether my hon. Friend can supply one. Why are the Government so willing to punish local authorities by the setting up of HATs but not willing to take any firm and effective action against gangster landlords such as the one that I mentioned?

Mr. Spearing: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I think that he will agree with what I am about to say. There is not much punishment for local authorities, although there is in the global sense. However, there is punishment for the people who live in the areas where HATs are to be designated—we do not even know where they are—because, as I said last week, the housing that is owned collectively by the community will, in effect, be confiscated. HATs are, or can be, a vehicle for confiscation from the people of the area. For example, in Canning Town in my constituency, the Custom house area is almost purpose-built for a HAT because of the conditions there. I urge every hon. Member to think of the provisions of the Bill in terms of his own constituency.
My hon. Friend asks what is to prevent rogue landlords such as the one that he mentioned being involved. As far as I can see, there is nothing, other than the directions that the Secretary of State ought to issue in respect of what the HAT can do in disposing of its property. To be sure, some of it will go to the people who can afford to buy. The Secretary of State, who has just left the Chamber, may in his initial letters tell the local tenants that they can have their property at knockdown prices, or even no price under a Walker arrangement, about which we read in the press not long ago. None of the Ministers has said anything about the Walker scheme, but the HAT can operate it by the direction of the Secretary of State.
It may be that the Under-Secretary, or still more the Minister for Housing and Planning, will not wish to direct


the implementation of the Walker scheme, but any future Secretary of State of any future Government, perhaps a Government even more set on having their own way, could do so, once authorised by the House. My modest request is that any such directions of restraint against the Rachman-type landlords to which my hon. referred, or encouragement for the wrong sort of land development, should be published.
I see that, following my amendment No. 314, the Government have tabled amendment No. 333, which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected with mine. That provides:
The Secretary of State shall publish any direction given under this section.
We are thankful for small mercies, and I suppose that I can claim a constitutional footnote in that, although this is a Government amendment, it may have been stimulated by mine. It is not always recognised that Government amendments do not necessarily originate from the Government. They may result from undertakings or be stimulated by other amendments.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, even if this information is published, that does nothing to ameliorate our concern that HATs will be not about housing but about the transfer of property, and in particular the transfer of land, under the powers of compulsory acquisition which, together with the powers of planning, have a Midas touch on land value. We have seen it in east London in the docklands, and it has spread throughout the country. It can happen in any area if the House has so decided by a majority of one vote after an hour-and-a-half debate. That is why the directions should be published, and published consistently, and that is why I have tabled my amendment.

Mrs. Roe: I wish first of all to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about housing action trust disposals. He should read the Bill more carefully, because clauses 74 and 77 set out our proposals and the Government amendments, which are to be discussed shortly, further strengthen the proposed arrangements.
I agreed in Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that we would bring forward an amendment to require any direction made by the Secretary of State to be published. Amendment No. 333 fulfils that commitment.
4 pm
Amendment No. 314 requires directions by the Secretary of State to be published in the London Gazette. We are happy to agree that those directions should be published in the London Gazette, but we do not think that that needs to be made a statutory requirement. It would not be sensible to limit publication to the London Gazette, as, depending upon the content of the direction, it may be appropriate to publish it, in, for example, a local newspaper. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree to Government amendment No. 333, which requires the Secretary of State's directions to HATs to be published, and will reject amendment No. 314 as unnecessary.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for the Minister's information that Government amendment No. 333 was put down as a consequence of an undertaking in

Committee, although it has taken about two months for that to be done. That is an illustration of the way in which the Government are paying their respect, not just to the House, but to its procedures. In view of the undertaking, the amendment should have been tabled much earlier. I hope not only that local newspapers will publish the information, but that offices of the housing action trusts will complete their duties by having such instructions at least available in a register, if not displayed and perhaps widely circulated in the area.
We have many other matters to discuss today. In view of the Minister's undertaking, which does not go as far as my amendment, but goes some way in its spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 333, in page 48, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State shall publish any direction given under this section.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 69

TRANSFER OF LAND AND OTHER PROPERTY TO HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 316, in page 49, line 38, at end insert
`which shall be specified in the statutory instrument specified in subsection (6) below'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 318, in clause 80, page 56, line 15, at end insert—
`(6) No such agreement shall take effect until after a draft statutory instrument incorporating the text of an agreement referred to in subsection (1) above has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.

Mr. Spearing: This is a rather more important amendment because it deals with the transfer of land and other property to a housing action trust—or, as I would call it, confiscation. I note that no one has yet challenged the use of that word. The term "confiscation" is usually used when a public body takes over some form of private property without proper compensation. All hon. Members believe that that is wrong, although one can always argue whether it is unfair compensation or confiscation. However, that is a matter of balance.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I wish to reinforce my hon. Friend's point about confiscation. Bristol city council contacted the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, accountants working for local authorities and another reputable accountant in the city to ask them, given the current Government criteria, what amount of money a housing action trust would have to pay for a council house unit. The answer was £3,000 or thereabouts. Tenants, even under the right-to-buy scheme with maximum discounts, cannot buy the property for £3,000. That makes my hon. Friend's point very strongly. Bristol city's housing stock will be confiscated, at the rate of £3,000 a unit, if the city is unfortunate enough to have a housing action trust.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, because it underlines my point. Even if the Walker scheme is instituted and a sitting tenant is given a free gift of the property in which he or she lives, that is confiscation from future generations because those people,


who are at present living in low-cost rented social accommodation, which the Minister apparently wishes to maintain in the capital, will not find the same municipal vacancies available, and therefore the community will not be so well served.
At present, in London, there are only about 10,000 allocations by local authorities each year, and that figure has been going down. It will be greatly reduced if HATs come into effect because, although there may be allocations through housing associations, if a property is sold off, either to a sitting tenant or to a landlord, the number of social housing voids will go right down. The number of people obtaining social accommodation which, in a recent press release, the Minister said was very important, will therefore be greatly reduced.
Clause 69 gives the Secretary of State power to transfer local housing from the local council to the HAT. Subsection (2) states:
Without prejudice to the powers under subsection (1) above, if in the opinion of the Secretary of State a housing action trust requires for the purposes of its functions any land which, though not falling within that subsection, is situated in the designated area and held (for whatever purpose) by a local authority, the Secretary of State may by order provide for the transfer of that land to the trust.
We are talking, therefore, not about existing housing land, but about land owned by a local authority, for whatever purpose. It might be a playing field, and we know what happens to so-called surplus playing fields. Recent housing and planning legislation contained a formula to determine which playing fields were surplus, and we know how they have been compulsorily sold throughout the country. The amendment cannot stop that, but it ensures that the terms
shall be specified in the statutory instrument specified in subsection (6)".
Subsection (6) states that a statutory instrument
shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That is an insufficient safeguard. It should be an affirmative resolution because, under the Bill, the Secretary of State can lay a statutory instrument and, in the case of an existing HAT, the land or property will be transferred. It will not be subject to debate following a resolution of the House.
I simply ask that the terms under which the land is transferred are included in the order. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has given a good example of the need for that provision. It is a tiny bit of glasnost which, if a fiddle is going on, shows the extent to which it is affecting local people. That is the reason behind amendment No. 316.
Amendment No. 318 deals with a rather more substantial matter. Surprisingly enough, a housing action trust does not necessarily have to do the work itself. There is an engine of centralised Government within the local authority, taking away its planning powers, its land and its housing. clause 80 states:
With the approval of the Secretary of State, a housing action trust may enter into an agreement with another person whereby, in relation to any housing accommodation or other land held by the trust which is specified in the agreement, that other person shall exercise, as agent of the trust, such of the functions of the trust as are so specified.
Amendment No. 318 also applies to that.
No such agreement shall take effect until after a draft statutory instrument incorporating the text of an agreement referred to in subsection (1) above has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Constitutionally, that is an important amendment.
The Secretary of State, who is present today, asks for those massive centralised powers. In the past, he has been a great critic of centralised Government power. He has criticised it consistently, as he has every right to do. The Secretary of State is introducing legislation that provides that, as I put it, a local authority's lands and housing can be confiscated from the local community. On approval, he can say that any part of the HAT and any part of its functions can be operated by any other person. The Bill does not even limit this transfer of power to other statutory authorities. It can be handed out as a piece of patronage, or as easy money, to any person. Presumably any local estate agent or local management of housing will be able to discharge any part of the management of HAT, which we know will be as wide as anyone cares to make it. An enormous power will be given to the Secretary of State.
In addition, any of the functions of a trust, or all its work, can be handed over to another body or association. Clause 80(3) states:
Where the agent is a body or association, an agreement under subsection (1) above may provide that the functions of the agent under the agreement may be performed by a committee or sub-committee, of by an officer, of the body or assocation.
Having said that no person can take over the job of a HAT, the Bill provides that a body, association, committee, sub-committee or officer of such a body or association can discharge all the functions of the HAT as an agent. It is not even stipulated that that person or officer has to be an officer of a public body. Presumably an association of landowners could undertake the work of a HAT.
We have a legal piece of circuitry whereby the HAT. or its chairman or members, can hand on to any of its friends any of the powers which it or they have by virtue of the Bill, provided they obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State. This is an almost unimaginable piece of power distribution. Such distribution may sometimes be a good thing where it is accountable and responsible, but the Bill is taking us further and further from democratic accountability. I shall not use the rude word which many have uttered during our debates on Report, but here is the centralised state coming to a state of semi-dictatorship.
The Secretary of State, or his officials, will have to monitor the work of an unlimited number of HATs. He or they will have to appoint their members and chairmen, and they in turn, with the Secretary of State's approval, can hand on all their work to any body, association or officer concerned.
Our work on Report is at least to bring some public light to what the Secretary of State is about. It would seem that the public, including even those who support the Government, do not understand the extent of the near-dictatorial powers that are being given by the Secretary of State by the small print in the Bill. That is why I am proposing in amendment No. 318 that any agreement of the sort to which I have referred should not take effect until after the draft statutory instrument incorporating the agreement has been passed and approved by resolution of the House.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am full of admiration for the way in which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) draws the widest implications from amendments, which I


think must have been rather smaller in scope originally. The power that will be given to the HATs will be nothing more or less than the power that is available to local authorities under the Housing Act 1985. They will be subject also ——

Mr. Paul Boateng: Does not the Minister realise that the difference between local authorities and HATs—it is one that my hon. Friends and I have stressed time and time again—is that local authorities are elected bodies and HATs will not be? That makes all the difference in the world. We cannot accept the imposition of an unelected body that will be unaccountable to the people whom purportedly it will serve.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, he has drawn attention time and time again to his party's objections to HATs. The House has had the opportunity time and time again to decide by vote whether it agrees with his views or those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is how the House proceeds. realise that there is a difference between a HAT and a local authority. A HAT will be a temporary body that will bring with it central Government resources that will revitalise housing in certain areas.
In the context of amendment No. 316, I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Newham, South. We shall proceed in a precedented way. The hon. Gentleman is an expert on London government, and I have no doubt that he is aware of the provisions of section 23 of the London Government Act 1963. A previous Conservative Government—this was done also by various Labour Governments—set out in orders the methods by which valuation would be arrived at. I can give the clear commitment that that will be done in future. I can assure the House that orders transferring properties will set out as clearly as possible the principles of valuation that the district valuer will use to formulate his advice on the value of the properties that the HAT is to take over. There will be no question of confiscation. Proper valuations will be reached by the district valuer in the normal way.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I found the Minister's comments interesting. He said when responding to amendment No. 316 that the process by which housing or other property will be transferred to HATs is well precedented and that the terms of the valuation will be set out. Why not include the necessary provisions in legislation? I am all for including detail in primary legislation.
The Secretary of State will employ the negative procedure, and it is a fact that over the past 50 years or more the House has handed over increasing power to Secretaries of State without any adequate means of scrutinising delegated legislation. The Minister knows that, when the negative procedure is followed, there is no requirement that there should be debates in this place. A prayer has to be tabled, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), for example, tables one, there is no guarantee that it will be allocated time by the Government.
We know that the Government retain supremacy in allocating time in this place. No Standing Order requires that, if a prayer is tabled, time shall be provided for debate. Discretion rests entirely with the Government. If further

details are sought and if hon. Members want the Minister to be accountable to the House, they must try to obtain Front-Bench support for the prayer to ensure that it is debated, and so require the Minister to provide details.
As it is so difficult to ensure that there is ministerial accountability, and as the House is failing, in my view, to provide adequate debate, I suggest that the Minister should give an assurance that goes beyond a statement that precedent will be followed. The Minister probably knows that precedents are sometimes forgotten by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on the Environment. It is a hit-or-miss affair, and sometimes Departments make a mess of statutory instruments. I accept, of course, that they issue long memoranda in which they apologise for having overlooked or omitted precedent, but the fact remains that precedents are sometimes overlooked.
Why not incorporate precedent in primary legislation? If that is done, the civil servants who draft statutory instruments for signature by the Minister will have to do what is set out in legislation. Amendment No. 316 is very useful and specifies that. In effect, the Minister has said that, by virtue of precedent, the terms are put down because terms of valuation are included on the face of the order. There is no problem. The terms of amendment No. 316 are applied in some way, not entirely as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has set out, but there will be some kind of application. Therefore, I cannot imagine that the Minister has many objections to dotting i's and crossing a few t's in primary legislation. I am always in favour of that.
The Minister said that previous Labour and Conservative Governments have operated the system. While that is absolutely true, the system of delegated legislation and its scrutiny in this place is less than satisfactory. We should always try to get the primary legislation as clear as possible. That is why I support amendment No. 316.
Amendment No. 318 relates to transferring powers from a local authority to a quango. As the Minister has said, those powers are not exceptional. In amendment No. 318, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South wants to modify the Secretary of State's powers in that respect. That is always a useful thing to do. I remind the Minister that, when the Conservative party was in opposition, it mounted a considerable campaign against quangos. It said that it did not like them, that it wanted to get rid of them. When the Conservative party came to office in 1979, the Government produced statements that they had got rid of two or three quangos here and there and that that was a great step forward because they did not like quangos. However, the Government are now establishing quangos.
Some of us do not like quangos. We did not like them then and we do not like them now. Sometimes they are necessary, so we cannot rule them absolutely out of court. However, we do not like to give them enormous powers, because they are not like local authorities, which are subject to democratic elections. That is an important concept, although it is removed from the Government, who are not too bothered about democratic procedures. Therefore, amendment No. 318 is very well worth while.
In effect, the quangos may almost have powers of sub-delegation granted to them by the House in primary legislation. That is outrageous. One task of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select


Committee on Statutory Instruments, which are charged by the House to examine these matters, is to look out for sub-delegation. The House may pass a resolution to grant powers of scrutiny to a Select Committee on certain areas that it believes are suspect. Sub-delegation is one of those suspect areas.
You will not be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if I raise these matters. They are matters of concern and we shall have to continue to raise them to ensure that something is done to make better provision for scrutiny. No matter how well intentioned the Minister is, when he gets into his office in Whitehall and says, "Well, I don't much like this order," the civil servants will tell him, "Well, that is as may be, Mr. Minister of State or Mr. Parliamentary Under-Secretary, but actually the legal responsibility is not yours. You can advise the Secretary of State. The primary legislation puts the responsibility on the Secretary of State."
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State in various Departments and Ministers of State can make as much noise as they want, the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State can expostulate as much as they like, but if the Secretary of State is determined to go down a particular road, there is nothing that they can do about it, as the civil servants used to explain to me when Eric Varley was Secretary of state and went down various roads that I did not much like. That led to the boardroom of Coalite, which gives some idea of the character of the former Secretary of State.
The Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State. I do not like that, and I entirely support amendments Nos. 316 and 318.

Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for his enlightenment, direct—albeit some time ago —from a desk in Whitehall. My hon. Friend has made my case stronger.
When the Minister replied, he did not deny any of the possible consequences that I envisaged from this part of the Bill, particularly relating to amendment No. 318 which we are discussing with amendment No. 316. the Minister said that I had given the widest interpretation, as if that was somehow unfair. That was not unfair. I believe that there is a great risk of centralised domination direct from the Secretary of State, telling the quangos to whom they must delegate. We must ensure that none of the persons given those agencies has any political interests which might conflict or be in accordance with the Government's objectives. That would not do, would it?
The Minister said, "What's this? It is only giving power to do what local authorities can do at the moment." That is just not correct. While local authorities may have planning powers and powers of compulsory purchase which the quangos will have, they cannot exercise those powers with the ease with which the quango will be able to act. Quangos can act with the approval of the Secretary of State or with a negative instrument, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has said. They do not necessarily have to go through the same planning hoops as local authorities. I suppose that they might deem themselves planning consent. That makes nonsense of the point about the value of land.
The biggest point is that, according to clause 58(3)(d), the quangos can
carry on any business or undertaking.

I did not think that local authorities could do that. Perhaps the Secretary of State has not read the Bill that he is taking through the Bill. I did not know that local authorities could
carry on any business or undertaking.
Amendment No. 316 refers to valuation. We know that the HATs will have to draw up some kind of plan. Will the land be valued, or will the terms of transfer be valued, before or after the plan has been drawn up? Part of my constituency is very close to the royal docks, which are to be developed as a highly expensive area. What will happen to the value of the surrounding land? On what basis will compensation be granted?
When the other place reaches these matters, it may look into some of the questions that I have raised, which I believe that the Minister has answered unwisely and, in one respect at least, inaccurately.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 402, in page 49, line 39, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Speaker: With this t will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 403, in page 49, line 43, leave out from 'property' to end of line 45.
No. 410, in clause 81, page 56, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (a).

Mr. Spearing: Clause 69 authorises the
transfer of land and other property to housing action trusts".
That precedes the authority that we discussed in amendment No. 316. The extraordinary subsection (5) of clause 69 states:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, the financial terms referred to in that subsection may include provision for payments by a local authority as well as or instead of payments to a local authority.
That makes it clear that the Secretary of State may say that the land or housing he is to take over has a negative value.
We know all about negative values in the London docklands, which the LDDC now claims it has made positive to the extent of £1 million or £2 million per acre. Subsection (5) will give the Secretary of State authority to ask the local authority to pay the Government money for the land or property that is taken off its hands. That is my understanding of the subsection, and I believe that that is what was read into it in Committee.
4.30 pm
The Government can say to a local authority, "If you keep this property, you will have to lay out a lot of money. It represents a liability for you. We shall take it off your hands and spend money refurbishing it. If we believe it to be a liability you will pay the money for it." That aspect is of particular importance in my own constituency, where there are eight tower blocks, including Ault Point, Hume Point and Gannon Point. If they are made available for refurbishment, and that is a big question mark, the Secretary of State may say to the local authority, "Pay us to take those tower blocks off your hands". That would be an extraordinary use of his power, because the local authority would lost the possibility of rehousing people and would also have to pay the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State may argue that if the local authority hangs on to that property, it will be a liability. However, the real liability will be on the community, so


such a provision is immoral. It will take money from the local authority, and will take away facilities at the same time.
Amendment No. 410 deals with the same point and concerns what happens when a housing action trust is wound up. We know that such is in the Secretary of State's mind and that trusts are only meant as transitional bodies, to get land and property out of public hands and into private hands.
Clause 81(4)(a) reads:
where it provides for any such disposal or transfer as is mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above, may be on such terms, including financial terms, as the Secretary of State thinks fit and may create or impose such new rights or liabilities in respect of what is transferred as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
In other words, when the trust is wound up, the Secretary of State can stipulate what liabilities and important rights go with it. That may absolve from liability the housing action trusts, and it makes the value of what they are providing rather more than what the valuation may indicate.
When the Minister winds up, I ask him to tell the House how the Secretary of State will use his powers. He may not be able to legislate for the future because the subsection says that the Secretary of State may act as he "thinks fit". A future Secretary of State may think very differently from the Minister who holds that office at the moment.
It must also be borne in mind that a housing action trust has powers of planning and acquisition, so the legal flexibility given by the subsection is very great.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for this opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions and to suggest that he might think differently if clause 69(5) were included in a Bill to take into public ownership various aspects of manufacturing. Supposing that there was legislation stipulating that
the transfer from a weaving company or other manufacturing interest of any property or any other land or factories by virtue of this section shall not be taken to give rise to any right to compensation.
What would the Minister think about that? We are getting some useful legislative hints and tips from the Government, ready for the time when we return to office.
The Labour party does not take the view that confiscation is a policy that it should support, and that is my view as well. I take the view that, if people suffer hardship when something is taken into public ownership, they can go to the supplementary benefits office and plead their case for hardship the same as anybody else. However, confiscation is apparently permissible in the case of local authorities. My guess is that, if the Labour party argued that in order to rescue a tottering industry, it should take it into public ownership and not pay compensation, or would not be obliged to pay compensation, the Minister would describe that as theft.
In this instance, the local authority is to have property taken from it, but subsection (5) states:
and the transfer from a local housing authority or other local authority of any local authority housing or other land or property by virtue of this section shall not be taken to give rise to any right to compensation.
The local authority will not have any right to say, "Just a minute—we are enjoying some rental income from that housing estate. After examining the figures, we find that we

have a positive revenue"—as I suppose it would say, using current jargon—"so we ought to be compensated." No compensation will be available by virtue of the Minister's right under clause 69 to authorise an order transferring land, housing or other property to the quango we are setting up, which will no doubt be stuffed to the gills with the Minister's Conservative cronies, judging by the examples of the past few years.
I hope that the Minister will explain why a local authority will not be able to claim compensation. He knows full well that local authorities are very hard pressed for money. If they are to have obligations removed from them by housing action trusts in order to produce the regeneration that the Minister keeps mentioning, it would surely help them to have an injection of money themselves, to regenerate other areas of activity that are short of money, including facilities for the handicapped and for education. In constituencies such as mine, local authorities are short of money for building permanent schools, and there may be as many as 500 temporary classrooms, which cannot be replaced because no money is to be had from this mean-minded Government.
In those circumstances, it would be reasonable for a local authority to say to the Minister, "Hang on a minute. Let's have some compensation. We have put in a certain amount of money over the past five years. We do not like you taking over this property, and we have spent several hundred thousand or even several million pounds over the past five years. What sort of compensation will we get?"
It is important that the House should debate those issues rather than let them go by in some mechanistic way, whereby everything is pushed to one side because of timetabling needs. If the House does not debate those issues, where can they be debated? [Interruption.] I shall conclude my remarks, because my hon. Friends are making various helpful suggestions to me, even though they apparently do not wish to intervene in this important debate about considerations which I am raising on behalf of local authorities that will be affected by the legislation.

Mr. Waldegrave: Opposition Members are under some misapprehension, because we are dealing here with valuations for transfers within the public sector The procedure we propose, by which the valuation should be at tenanted market value, could often produce higher values for the local authority concerned than would the normal, precedented procedure relating to outstanding loan debt, which is not a valuation procedure. If a local authority has housing with very low debt attached to it but of high value, it will receive more under the procedure we propose. It is not aimed at preventing local authorities from getting anything. It establishes the only logical way of proceeding. The valuation should be at tenanted market values.
I know that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will recognise that point, because I believe that in his borough housing, which was valued for some purpose by the local authority, had a negative value. That highlights the problem that that local authority faces in terms of repairs. In those circumstances, it is surely right for the subsidy system to take account of any transfer that leaves the local authority worse off. If there was dowry or negative transfer value, the subsidy system should take that into account, and we are looking at the subsidy system to ensure that it can. Therefore, the argument is not about confiscation or trying to do down the local authorities. It is about trying to value property rationally and sensibly.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) commented on flexibility and the winding up of the housing action trusts. I think that I can genuinely help him on that point—[Interruption.] We had a long debate in Committee with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. Perhaps we can discuss his point later, because I am not sure that all of us would want to go over that debate again. I beg the hon. Member for Knowsley, North not to intervene, but if he insists, I will, of course, give way to him.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Newham, South made a point about flexibility. At the moment, propriety would encourage the Secretary of State always to seek the highest value. I think that the hon. Member will agree that there may well be circumstances in which that would not be right when a housing action trust is wound up. The Secretary of State might want, for example, to lay certain obligations on a landlord who was about to take property from the housing action trust. He might want to say that that landlord should give nomination rights to the local authority or the housing association.
At that point, the Secretary of State would be laying an obligation on the landlord and the value would be less than it would otherwise have been. That is why we need to retain that kind of flexibility. Hon. Members need have no worry the other way. Propriety would normally provide the pressure for ensuring that the value was the highest possible. That gives flexibility which might allow the Secretary of State to load obligations on successor landlords which would diminish the value.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to push the Minister a little further on that point. I expect that the Minister has seen a feature article in today's Daily Telegraph—in any case, he will be aware of its content from parliamentary answers and exchanges of the past couple of weeks—by John Grigsby, which is headed "Borough's rent arrears soar £4 million in a year". It refers to my borough of Southwark and gives the appalling figure that Southwark's tenants now owe £32 million in rent arrears. By anybody's standards that is unacceptable management and I am sure that there will be no dissent from that view. The article also makes the point that that figure contrasts with £28 million a year ago and with £30 million at the beginning of this year. In the past 20 months, that figure has increased from £24·5 million.
One paragraph of the article, which the Minister may have seen, states:
The council is one of the largest municipal landlords with 62,000 homes—many of them erected during the 1960s system building boom and now suffering maintenance problems—and the size of the arrears makes the borough a favourite candidate to host one of the Government's Housing Action Trusts to be announced later this year.
As I have told the Secretary of State and the Minister before, I am not one of those who have encouraged the Minister to announce where the HATs will go earlier—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because one should debate the principle rather than be distracted by thinking about where they might go.
However, if the housing action trust is to be a mechanism for rescuing some of the worst housing, and if Knowsley borough council, which is the example that the Minister cited, or Southwark borough council, has a negative value for its housing stock as a whole—in some ways those local authorities have the sort of housing stock that will make them the most obvious candidates for

housing action trusts, because they are the most derelict and the most in need of additional investment—is there not an enormous contradiction? If the Government choose them because generally their accommodation is of such poor quality and because overall they have a negative value, such councils may be liable to pay the housing action trust for, in effect, being taken over. The result could be that pumping in the money and transferring across still leaves no residual debt.
4.45 pm
I remember the debate on that, and I am not seeking to open a general debate about the way in which one values such property, but if the Government are coming to the rescue of the most rundown housing stock in England and Wales, one should ask them to leave the local authority without a negative figure and without a liability to the housing action trust. That would at least mean that, if local authorities do not have any appalling huge housing estates, neither will they have any massive debts for housing that they no longer own.
Will the Minister comment on what appears to be an inconsistency in the policies of housing action trusts if, as we have understood it, that policy is to rescue, in the original phrase, "large chunks" of the worst municipal housing, because boroughs will be unable to afford to pay off their debts in the years to come if they no longer have the properties under their control?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 70

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFERORDERS

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 317, in page 50, leave out lines 28 to 32.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 319, in clause 81, page 56, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 57.

Mr. Spearing: I shall be brief, but the amendments are important because clause 70 gives considerable powers to the Secretary of State in respect of transfer orders. Subsection (4) states:
(4) In connection with any transfer made by it, a transfer order may contain such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient and, in particular, may—

(a) apply, with or without modification, any provision made by or under any enactment; and
(b) modify the operation of any provision made by or under any enactment."
As I read it, that means that modifications to the transfer can be made, altering and modifying any Act, as it goes along. Will the Minister explain why that provision is included and why it appears to give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to undermine and change any existing enactments?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that I can deal with the amendments in a way that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I agree that the powers look pretty broad, but I will try to explain why we have used them. The provisions are precedented in the London Government Act 1963 and the Local Government Act 1985. The orders will be subject to negative resolution procedures.
I shall give the hon. Gentleman some examples of the kind of matters with which we might want to deal. Obviously, they are important to the people concerned, but they may not sound important when mentioned at this level in the House. For example, we may want a HAT to be able to treat notices by the local housing authority as if they had been given by the HAT. We might also want to give HATs some flexibility about whether new rent books need to be issued. It might be pointless to change all that. In order to achieve this, the Secretary of State might use his power under clause 70 to treat notification by a HAT to a tenant that a transfer is taking place as compliance with section 5(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Moving on to clause 81, in addition to the similar general provision applying to dissolution orders, the hon. Member also expressed concern about the Secretary of State's power to set up new corporate bodies to take on some of the HATs' functions. There were some good examples of that which the hon. Member will remember during the abolition of the metropolitan counties. In, for example, South Yorkshire, a special pensions body was set up to deal with pension matters there. I refer to powers to deal with the odd and sometimes unpredictable situations which may arise and which need to be dealt with. As I have said, although they are important to the people concerned, I do not believe that they will worry the House, and they are well precedented.

Mr. Spearing: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72

ACQUISITION BY HOUSING ACTION TRUST

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 405, in page 51, line 15, leave out `by agreement or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 342 to 344.

Mr. Spearing: My amendment relates to further acquisitions by HATs. Not only can they acquire property by virtue of the statutory instruments that have already been discussed, but under this clause they can take land designated "by agreement". Although that might appear to be reasonable, "by agreement" does not necessarily mean a willing buyer or a willing seller in the usual sense. The Secretary of State might, for example, say to a local authority, "If you behave yourself and co-operate with the HAT and let it have your land by agreement rather than by compulsory purchase order, we might favourably consider some other issue."
In addition, as the HAT will have planning permission, it can offer a considerable inducement. An area of rundown shops in Tarling road, Custom house, in my constituency is owned by the local authority. Perhaps it will be taken over by a HAT or, at some time in the future, there may be planning permission for the use of those shops in the nearby docklands redevelopment, and that could be held out as an inducement. The Minister must say how such agreement is envisaged, how it will work and what inducements might be offered to gain an agreement that might not otherwise be gained.

Mr. Waldegrave: I genuinely find it difficult to understand precisely to what the hon. Gentleman is objecting in a HAT acquiring land by agreement. The hon. Gentleman, even more than I, will know that there have been one or two cases of the London Docklands development corporation and the local authority getting together to take reasonable steps to improve the neighbourhood. That might have involved the LDDC buying a little land as part of a sensible piece of land assembly. I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman could object to that.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will acknowledge, the Government amendments are a response to a commitment given in Committee that the acquisition powers given to HATs would be limited in the way that the urban district council powers were limited in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Mr. Spearing: I understand why the Government have introduced their amendments. However, the Minister appears not to realise that what he referred to as an agreement between the local authority and the LDDC is not necessarily viewed as such in the area. A block of flats in my constituency known as Barnwood court was the subject of discussions about possible agreement on alternative accommodation—but it was certainly not an agreement in the view of the local population.
The amendment highlights the fact that the clause puts the HAT in a position of considerable leverage and power, which is not compatible with the usual democratic local government. Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 342, in page 51, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
(2) A housing action trust may acquire (by agreement or, on being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State, compulsorily)—

(a) land adjacent to the designated area which the trust requires for purposes connected with the discharge of its functions in the area; and
(b) land outside the designated area (whether or not adjacent to it) which the trust requires for the provision of services in connection with the discharge of its functions in the area.'.

No. 343, in page 51, line 30, leave out
'For the purposes of its functions'.

No. 344, in page 51, line 33, leave out from 'order' to end of line 34 and insert—

'(a) being rights over land in the designated area and which the trust requires for the purposes of its functions;
(b) being rights over land adjacent to the designated area and which the trust requires for purposes connected with the discharge of its functions in the area; and
(c) being rights over land outside the designated area (whether or not adjacent to it) and which the trust requires for the provision of services in connection with the discharge of its functions in the area.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 74

DISPOSAL OF LAND BY HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move amendment No. 345, in page 52, line 28, after 'to', insert 'subsection (1A) below and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 346, 347, 334 to 341 and amendment No. 90, in clause 77, page 54, line 48, at end insert—
`(6) In any case where the provisions of this section apply, a disposal may only be made to a person or body approved by the Housing Corporation under section 87 of this Act.
(7) Any secure tenant in receipt of a notice under subsection (2) above shall have the right, on request, to become a secure tenant of the local authority from which the accommodation of which he is the tenant was transferred under section 69 of this Act and any such notice shall inform him of the said right.
(8) Where a secure tenant exercises the right conferred by this section the Secretary of State shall adjust the amount of expenditure prescribed under Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Capital Expenditure of Local Authorities etc) for the local authority to which it applies by an amount equal to the price for which the accommodation to which this section relates is transferred to the local authority.'

Mr. Ridley: This important group of amendments has been tabled to meet commitments given in Committee that tenants be reassured about their future once HATs have completed their work. It is a matter of real choice for tenants. When improvements have been made, I hope that many tenants will want to buy their homes. However, others will wish to stay in the social rented sector and they need to he reassured about what that will mean for them. The amendments provide just that assurance.
First, housing action trusts can transfer secure tenants and their properties only to landlords approved by the Housing Corporation. Those might include housing associations, tenants' co-operatives or other landlords, if approved. In all cases, the basis of approval will be the same as for our tenants' choice proposals. The Housing Corporation's criteria will be concerned with prospective landlords' stability, viability, competence and long-term commitment to provide decent rented houses for those who need it at a price they can afford. Those criteria, together with the undertakings that approved landlords will be required to give, will provide real guarantees for HAT tenants, and my power of consent over all proposed HAT disposals will help to make that stick.
Secondly, some tenants might prefer to return to the care of the local authority. The Bill will now require HATs to consult local authorities about their willingness to take on such tenants. If they are happy to do so, that option will be put fairly and squarely to the tenants. Thirdly, because we recognise the importance of ensuring that all HAT tenants have adequate information about the disposal options available, and enough time to digest those options, we are strengthening the Bill to improve the precedures governing tenant consultation. Taken together, the amendments offer tenants the prospect of improved homes, a choice of landlord and guarantees about their future.
While accepting the basic elements, the Opposition amendment seeks to go two steps further by, first, giving HAT tenants an absolute right of return to the local authority. That was debated at length in Committee. I cannot accept that it is reasonable to compel a local authority, many years ahead of a potential HAT disposal, to take back any tenant who so asks. The authority may no longer be in the rented housing business or it may have a different perception of its priorities. Comparisons made by the Opposition with tenants' right to buy or right to choose a new landlord are misconceived. It is one thing to

give tenants a right to leave an authority; it is quite another to enable them to return whether or not that authority wishes it. However, if local authorities want to commit themselves in advance, that is a choice that they can make.
The second proposal, also discussed in Committee, is that an authority's prescribed expenditure should be automatically adjusted to reflect the cost of acquiring stock from a HAT. It will already have received the benefit of a capital receipt at the time of the original transfer, which will add to its spending power over time. There is, therefore, no case for a further adjustment to prescribed expenditure at the later stage. I regret that I cannot advise the House to accept the Opposition amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the fact that the Government have moved some way towards meeting the objections made in Committee, although I regret that they have not gone the whole way. There is a certain inconsistency in the argument that tenants can choose when, in reality, they will not have that right. Initially, a decision on the new landlord will he made without the consent either of the tenants or of the local authority. At the end of the life of a HAT—the Secretary of State has confirmed this—even if the tenants explicitly show that they want to return to being local authority tenants, that may not be possible. That is regrettable and inconsistent with the supposed philosophy of the Bill. Of course, the ultimate philosophy is not a right to choose; it is to de-municipalise housing. Therefore, it is consistent with that to make it difficult, if not impossible, for tenants to return to the local authority.
Although it is agreed that there should be more guarantees that tenants will have secure accommodation after the life of a HAT, and having provided that the landlords will be approved, it is regrettable that the Secretary of State has not gone the further mile and accepted that tenants who wish to return to local authorities should be allowed to do so. If that was a mutual agreement—if local authorities were willing to have tenants back and the tenants wished to go back—the principle of tenants' choice should require that the Opposition amendment be accepted.

5 pm

Mr. Morgan: The chilling words uttered by the Secretary of State—that the local authority may no longer be in the municipal housing sector by the time the FIAT winds up—go to the heart of the problems involved in this group of amendments in terms of what the Government really intend should be the future of the municipal housing sector. According to the Minister of State, when he introduced the Bill, the great purpose was to diversify the municipal sector, but it is clear that the Secretary of State intends to strangle it and the Secretary of State for Wales, according to press leaks, intends to give it away. Council houses in Wales are now known as "two-up and £1 down".
The Government must sort out the confusion — preferably, for the purposes of constitutional propriety, through orthodox legislation rather than by a mixture of press leaks and last-minute amendments. The Department of the Environment seems to have stopped at 183 amendments. I think that the Secretary of State for Wales was under the impression that if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment reached 200, the Secretary of State for Wales could take the new ball and


table a new set of amendments, causing local authorities to give away municipal houses on a £1 deposit and allowing tenants to pay the rest out of housing benefit if they could not afford the normal obligations of ownership such as insurance, repairs, and so on.
At some stage in the constitutional process, the Government must tell us exactly what they intend. It is clear from their amendments that they intend the HATs to be a one-way street out of the municipal sector, with no option for tenants to return. That proposal must be combined with the premonitions from Wales. I understand that the heads of the Welsh Office housing division have been seconded to work in London with the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and occasionally, the Department of the Environment, with a view to getting £1-down de-municipalisation on to the statute book, either in conjunction with this Bill or even somehow overtaking the Bill along the fast lane of the M4.
The Government should play fair with local government and with the 80 per cent. of council tenants who have not taken advantage of discount purchase. The Government must say exactly what they intend. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the HAT is a one-way street out of council control and that there is no way back, even if the local authority wishes it, but there is a three-way confusion of strangulation, diversification and abdication. That illustrates the appalling muddle in Minister's minds in relation to this Bill, which has so many last-minute lean-to additions as to disqualify Ministers from house building of any kind. They cannot build legislation without changing their minds just as the roof is about to go on and the drains and services are being completed, so how can we possibly judge their intention? It is clear that there will be no way back into a council tenancy, even if the tenant so wishes.
Our amendment No. 90 would implement the original intention that the Government sold to the British public—that the aim of the Bill was diversification and a healthy climate of competition, including municipal housing, housing associations and approved private landlords. It seems, however, that that is no longer the intention. The Secretary of State made that chillingly clear with the suggestion that some or even all councils might not be in the municipal housing business by the time the HATs wind up their work.
It is essential that the Government make a clear statement of their real intention in the light of the schemes floated in the press by the Secretary of State for Wales, the statements about diversification made in Committee by the Minister of State, and the clear statement from the Secretary of State today that the proposal is a one-way street designed to strangle the life out of the municipal sector altogether.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has misinterpreted what I said. I repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that if tenants wish to return to the local authority and the authority wishes to have them back, they may go back. Indeed, if the local authority commits itself in advance, that can be made clear at the beginning, so the hon. Member for Cardiff, West is far wide of the mark.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 346, in page 52, line 32, at end insert—
'(1A) A housing action trust may not dispose of a house which is for the time being subject to a secure tenancy except—

(a) to a person who is for the time being approved by the Corporation either under this section or under section 87 below, or
(b) to a local housing authority or other local authority in accordance with section 77 below;
but this subsection does not apply to a disposal under Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (the right to buy).'.

No. 347, in page 53, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) The Corporation shall not under this section approve—
(a) a public sector landlord; or
(b) the council of a county; or
(c) any other body which the Corporation have reason to believe might not be independent of such a landlord or council;
and, for the purposes of paragraph (c) above, a body shall not be regarded as independent of a public sector landlord or the council of a county if the body is or appears likely to be under the control of, or subject to influence from, such a landlord or council or particular members or officers of such a landlord or council.
(4B) In subsection (4A) above "public sector landlord" means—
(a) a local housing authority;
(b) a new town corporation within the meaning of section 4(b) of the Housing Act 1985; and
(c) the Development Board for Rural Wales.
(4C) The Corporation shall establish (and may from time to time vary) criteria to be satisfied by a person seeking approval under this section and, in deciding whether to give such approval, the Corporation shall have regard to whether the person satisfies the criteria.
(4D) Subject to any directions under section 76 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, (directions by the Secretary of State),—
(a) an approval under this section may be made conditional upon the person or persons concerned entering into such undertakings as may be specified by the Corporation; and
(b) if it appears to the Corporation appropriate to do so (whether by reason of a failure to honour an undertaking or to meet any criteria or for any other reason) the Corporation may revoke an approval given under this section by notice in writing served on the approved person, but such a revocation shall not affect any transaction completed before the service of the notice.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 77

PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO DISPOSALS OF DWELLING-HOUSES SUBJECT TO SECURE TENANCIES

Amendments made: No. 334, in page 54, line 18, leave out 'which will' and insert—
'of one or more houses let on secure tenancies which would'.

No. 335, in page 54, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) Before applying to the Secretary of State for consent to the proposed disposal or serving notice under subsection (2) below, the housing action trust shall serve notice in writing—
(a) on any local housing authority in whose area any houses falling within subsection (1) above are situated, and
(b) if any such houses were transferred to the trust from another local housing authority or other local authority under section 69 above, on that authority,
informing the authority of the proposed disposal, specifying the houses concerned, and requiring the authority within such period, not being less than 28 days, as may be specified in the notice, to serve on the trust a notice under subsection (1B) below.
(1B) A notice by a local housing authority or other local authority under this subsection shall inform the housing


action trust, with respect to each of the houses specified in the notice under subsection (1A) above which is in the authority's area or, as the case may be, which was transferred from the authority as mentioned in paragraph (b) or that subsection,—
(a) that the authority wishes to acquire the house or is considering its acquisition; or
(b) that the authority does not wish to acquire the house;
and where the authority serves notice as mentioned in paragraph (a) above with respect to any house, the notice shall give information as to the likely consequences for the tenant if the house were to be acquired by the authority.'

No. 336, in page 54, line 22, after 'disposal',
'and after the expiry of the period specified in the notice under subsection (IA) above'.

No. 337, in page 54, line 31, leave out 'and'.

No. 338, in page 54, line 31, at end insert—
'(ca) informing him, with respect to the house of which he is tenant, of the wishes of the local housing authority and of any other authority which has served a notice under subsection (1B) above;
(cb) if an authority has served notice under paragraph (a) of subsection (1B) above with respect to that house, informing him (in accordance with the information given in the notice) of the likely consequences for him if the house were to he acquired by that authority and also, if he wishes to become a tenant of that authority, of his right to make representations to that effect under paragraph (d) below.'.

No. 339, in page 54, line 33, leave out 'reasonable period' and insert
'period, being not less than 28 days'.

No 340, in page 54, line 35, leave out from beginning to `representations' in line 42 and insert—
`(3) The housing action trust shall consider any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(d) above and, if it considers it appropriate having regard to—
(a) any representations so made, and
(b) any further information which may be provided by an authority which served a notice under subsection (1B)(a) above that it was considering the acquisition of a house,
the trust may amend its proposals with respect to the disposal and, in such a case, shall serve a further notice under subsection (2) above (in relation to which this subsection will again apply).
(4) When applying to the Secretary of State for consent to the proposed disposal (as amended, where appropriate by virtue of subsection (3) above) the housing action trust shall furnish to him—

(a) a copy of any notice served on it under subsection (1B) above or served by it under subsection (2) above;
(aa) a copy of any'.

No. 341, in page 54, line 44, at end insert—
'( ) Without prejudice to the generality of section 67 above, where an application is made to the Secretary of State for consent to a disposal to which this section applies, the Secretary of State may, by a direction under that section, require the housing action trust—
(a) to carry out such further consultation with respect to the proposed disposal as may be specified in the direction; and
(b) to furnish to him such information as may be so specified with respect to the results of that consultation.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Clause 81

DISSOLUTION OF HOUSING ACTION TRUST

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 408, in page 56, line 26, leave out 'person' and insert `local authority or public body'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 409, in page 56, line 31, leave out `person' and insert
`local authority or public body'.

Mr. Spearing: We draw near to the conclusion of our consideration of amendments on housing action trusts with provisions relating to dissolution. Clause 81 states:
Where it appears to a trust that its objects have been substantially achieved, it shall"—
and the things that it shall do include:
the disposal to any person of any remaining property, rights or liabilities".
The amendment seeks to delete the word "person" and to insert
local authority or public body".
The property in the hands of a HAT at the time of its dissolution will substantially consist of public property acquired from the public and from other persons by means of public money. It is only right, therefore, that when the HAT is dissolved it should bestow on the local community via a public body any property of which it has not already disposed. That is not merely just, but proper.
The amendment will also prevent the transfer from one gauleiter to another of property already in the hands of one person. Under clause 80, a HAT may devolve responsibility to "another person". Under the Bill as drafted, therefore, a person acting under an agency agreement can presumably, on dissolution of the HAT, devolve property or benefit on any other person, so that it would pass from one individual to another under the devolved power. That seems an extraordinary power and I hope that the Secretary of State will explain it.
I believe that the amendment is right and proper and should be made.

Mrs. Roe: Clause 58 sets out clearly the objects of a HAT, which include:
to encourage diversity in the interests by virtue of which housing accommodation in the area is occupied and, in the case of accommodation which is occupied under tenancies, diversity in the identity of the landlords".
If hon. Members study that clause more carefully. they will appreciate why we cannot accept the amendments and why we reject them in spirit as well as in letter. We want HATs to increase choice and to give tenants an opportunity to transfer to new landlords. We do not believe that any property for which a HAT has not found a new destination when the HAT reaches the end of its life should automatically return to a local authority or other public owner. We believe that the great expanses of monotonous local authority estates must be broken up for the benefit of those who live there. It follows that, so far as possible, we hope to see HATs offering an alternative to a return to the local authority.
In the amendments that have just been made, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that HATs will offer all secure tenants the opportunity to return to the local authority, if the local authority is willing to take them back. But I shall nevertheless continue to oppose the notion that disposal of a HAT's residual property at the end of its life should be restricted to return to the local authority or other public body. Similarly, I see no reason why the transfer of functions—if that needs to happen at all—can be only to local authorities or public bodies.
It is quite possible that, for the few remaining pieces of property with which we should expect to see a HAT left


when it is ready to put forward dissolution proposals, a housing association or a tenants' co-operative may be the right recipient. If a housing association were to take on all remaining housing of a HAT, it might very well take on HAT staff—and it might need some of a HAT's functions in relation to those staff, such as making arrangements for pensions.
I have to emphasise that these are fail-safe provisions, necessary because we need to enable a HAT to be wound up when it has substantially completed its task. The provisions in the Bill do not rule out property, rights and liabilities, and indeed functions, being disposed of or transferred to local authorities and public bodies, but it would be foolish to impose the unnecessary restriction on disposals and transfers proposed in the amendments. therefore invite hon. Members to reject both amendments.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Lady gave herself away by talking about greater choice. The establishment of a HAT and the force of putting people under the landlordship of a HAT will be by order of the House; it will not be through the choice of the tenant, as it may well be in other parts of the Bill.
The hon. Lady may be right about some of the worthwhile ways in which the power can be used if a HAT has to be wound up, but I remind her and the House that when HATs transfer property before or after dissolution, they will be able to do so with the Midas touch of planning permission. Therefore they are machines not only for making public property private property, but, by virtue of their planning powers, they are giving enhanced value to the private sector, having acquired property from the public sector at rock bottom prices and to local public disadvantage. That is a fitting note on which to end this group of Opposition amendments. HATs should never need to be wound up, because they should not have been started in the first place.

Mr. Ian McCartney: As the Minister said, under clause 58 the responsibilities of HATs are not confined to general powers of acquiring housing and developing housing stock to benefit the community. In addition, clause 58 provides that a HAT can
facilitate the provision of shops, advice centres and other facilities for the benefit of the community or communities
to which the HAT is designated.
At present, many local authorities which will have their assets transferred will include within the designated HAT areas precisely those facilities. My own authority, Wigan metropolitan borough council, has substantial holdings in shops, youth centres, neighbourhood centres, the development of derelict land and previously privately owned land for community and leisure facilities. Those developments have taken place, and will continue to take place, directly through subsidies from local ratepayers and local taxpayers and through inner-area programme money designated by the Department of the Environment.
At the end of the HAT, there should be some facility for the return of those assets to the community, given that community resources, directly through the local authority or in joint projects between the local authority and the Department of the Environment, provided the facilities in the first place. It is unreasonable of the Minister to suggest that a HAT can be set up in an area where provision is being made for the local community through the local

authority's investment policies. It is invidious that at the end of the HAT, those resources are not returned to the local authority or to those designated to run the area.
We discussed this matter last week, and the Minister still has not resolved it. I can envisage the asset-stripping of public resources while the HAT is in existence and at the end of the HAT previously public resources may be handed over not to the directly elected local authorities which provided them in the first place, but to other private sector bodies which were not involved in the initial investment.
Finally, what will happen to local authorities such as my own, which has the Leeds-Liverpool canal corridor project? Along the length of the Leeds-Liverpool canal, there is a whole series of local authority housing projects. Linked to that is a whole series of land investment policies involving derelict land and reconditioned land.
5.15 pm
Given the Secretary of State's intentions in clause 58, the creation of a HAT would not only take public authority housing into the HAT, but would include those areas of land which are coming to fruition or being prepared for fruition in terms of planning permission and the identification of resources for the development of leisure and other facilities. From what the Minister said, it appears that the HAT would have the objective of taking over and disposing of the assets next to the housing stock. In places such as Wigan, in the development and refurbishment of our housing estates, it is essential that those areas which are important for leisure and for community use are retained for public use by local residents.
Wigan local authority, and I am sure other local authorities, having invested in such projects, would not allow them to be transferred to the HAT and, at the end of the HAT, transferred to the private sector, to an individual or a company who had not been involved at any stage in the initial idea of creating the projects, and had not invested any capital resources, but would simply benefit from the work of the local authority and the local community.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed No. 348, in page 59, line 27, at end insert—
`( ) In this Part of this Act "the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales but—
(a) an approval given by the Housing Corporation shall not have effect in relation to buildings or other property in Wales; and
(b) an approval given by Housing for Wales shall not have effect in relation to buildings or other property in England.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 368 to 370 and 376.

Mr. Morgan: I wish to raise one point about amendment No. 348, which appears to be the subject of a certain amount of confusion, or interdepartmental cross-sterilisation, between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales. It purports to describe the qualification system of the powers of the Housing Corporation, and the degree to which they will apply in Wales. It requires a different name for the separate housing corporation for Wales, Housing for


Wales, which will apply simply to Wales, while the Housing Corporation will apply only in England. It attempts to describe the powers of Housing in Wales.
The amendment was tabled in the name of only the Secretary of State for the Environment, and not in the name of the Secretary of State for Wales as well, which has been applied to all the other amendments involving Wales. I am well aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment is one of the Cabinet Ministers who is alleged not to speak to the Secretary of State for Wales, but this seems to be taking the process rather too far.
If one represents a Welsh constituency, it leads one to ask whether the Secretary of State for the Environment is now legislating for Wales, or whether the Secretary of State for Wales is involved as well. I wonder exactly what are the qualifications of the Secretary of State for the Environment to legislate for Wales. I am told that he considers his qualifications to legislate for Wales are that from his dude ranch in the Cotswolds, on a clear day, and with a telescope, he cannot quite see Wales. I am told that from the Cotswolds, on a clear day, with a telescope, he cannot see to the end of the mental green belt that he has put around his great ranch.
Wales is being treated as a last-minute legislative doormat by the Secretary of State for the Environment and he is not consulting his Cabinet colleagues as he properly should; there is either a technical error or a state of non-communication between Government Departments.
That leaves us with a major question. Does the appearance of the Secretary of State's name above amendment No. 348 mean that we may have housing action trusts in Wales? We have assumed that housing action trusts are not likely to be set up in Wales because we do not have multi-storey, deck access balcony contraptions, rather like 20th-century versions of the Secretary of State's property in the Cotswolds. Perhaps that is another reason why he believes he is qualified to legislate in this way.
As I have said, we are left with the thought that there may be housing action trusts in Wales. We should have the answer to that. Amendment No. 348 implies that we could have HATs, whereas all the indications given to people involved in housing in Wales are that the Secretary of State and his colleagues in Wales do not think that HATs are needed in Wales because we do not have 1960s system-built, multi-storey deck access housing. That should be cleared up now. We need to know what the Government's intentions are for HATs in Wales—or is this simply another example of the sloppy drafting of the Bill?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has not understood. It is perfectly clear that the HAT clauses apply to Wales, although the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he does not envisage any HATs being established in Wales. The amendments, about which there is no mistake or lack of clarity, have been approved by the two Departments concerned. They provide for the references to "The Corporation" in parts III and IV to mean "Housing for Wales" as well as the "Housing Corporation". They are purely technical.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 86

RIGHT CONFERRED BY PART IV

Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 59, line 35, leave out
'buildings each of which comprises or contains one or more'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 147, in page 59, line 37, leave out from 'tenants,' to end of line 39.

No. 101, in page 59, line 38, after 'property', insert
'not including any dwelling-house or flat'.

No. 148, in clause 89, page 61, line 36, leave out from 'above' to end of line 38.

Mr. Morgan: Through the device of the previous amendments, we have come to part IV of the Bill, on which I shall detain the House briefly. After all, it is the key to the way in which the Government intend to rig the ballot on the change-of-landlord, pick-a-landlord or pick-a-tenant scheme, or whatever one chooses to call it.
As far as we can tell, the purpose of the Government amendments to part IV is to exclude certain properties so that they can become more certain of obtaining a positive vote. That is why the amendments are reprehensible. However, they are not quite as reprehensible as the provisions by which those who have passed on may still be counted as being in favour of the Government. The Minister is in serious danger of entering "The Guinness Book of Records" as the first necrophiliac to become a Minister. I am speaking psephologically.

Mr. Waldegrave: It may help the House if I say that I believe that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to amendment No. 100, which is not a Government amendment.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister is right. Our amendments attempt to ameliorate the position so that we may have the power to exclude some of the buildings with which the Government are attempting to rig the ballot system. The Government are attempting to ensure that as few people as possible will be able to vote and that as many occupants as possible will be recorded as being in favour of a change of landlord.
We are attempting to incorporate our four minor amendments into the Bill. They do little to remedy the fundamental inequalities of the Bill as drafted, but they attempt to put some equality and elements of democracy back into this part of the Bill, so that people will have a chance to record their vote knowing that other people's vote will not be given greater power and that other people's votes, if not recorded, will not count double so as to push the pick-a-landord scheme through when that is not what the majority of tenants want.
One reason why the Secretary of State for Wales has come with a late rush on the outside in favour of the disposal of the municipal sector through further massive discounting down to £1 a time is that the Government realise that the pick-a-landlord scheme is unpopular among council tenants and that it will not get off the ground. The Government hope that by sowing confusion in everybody's mind they might have a chance of pushing some of the schemes through.

Mr. Tony Banks: This part of the Bill sets out a right for private landlords. housing associations, building societies and other companies to acquire council estates. The Minister and the Government


generally have referred to this part of the Bill as the "tenants' choice". That is not how the tenants see it. Those of us who have held meetings, which must include some Conservative Members, will realise that in the long run.
We have described this as "pick a tenant" or, in certain circumstances, "trick a tenant". The tenant cannot choose the council, and that restricts a significant area of choice for which we know most council tenants would opt. It does not matter how good or effective the council is as a manager. The council is the one body that cannot acquire dwelling houses under this part of the Bill.
As a result of amendments in Committee, the other category who cannot exercise the right to buy an estate under this part of the Bill is anyone who appears to be under the control of the council. In other words, this is not a tenants' choice. It is a manifestation of the Government's vindictive hostility towards local authorities and their determination to destroy them no matter whether the tenants suffer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) seems to be finding this vaguely amusing. If he were to talk to council tenants up and down the country, he would find out that that is not how they see it. I hope that that will be noted to the cost of the Conservative party at the next election.
From the pathetic "Tenants' Choice" document issued on 8 June, which purports to be the landlords' charter, for which we have been waiting for so long, it is clear that tenants will suffer a great deal. This is an invidious part of a vicious Bill, and I support the amendments.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have seldom had to answer a debate in which the Opposition spokesman began by attacking the amendments on the grounds that they were Government amendments and then found out that they were Opposition amendments. I stand by the early part of his speech, which was admirably put.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is a little out of date. Long ago, on Second Reading, I said that I had no doubt that in due course the Opposition would come round to some of the ideas in the Bill, just as they came round to the right to buy. It has happened more quickly than we predicted. The leader of the Labour party has already made some helpful interventions saying that the principles underlying this—with some changes that he would no doubt want to make——

Mr. Tony Banks: Wait until the Minister reads my right hon. Friend's next speech.

Mr. Waldegrave: I will look forward to his next speech. It may well be different. That is part of the delight involved in reading the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition. All human life is there, as it was in the old News of the World.
Clause 86 sets out this part of the Bill. It has been debated extensively in the House and in Committee. The core of the commitment is a tenant's home, whether a flat or house. Clause 86(1)(a) applies the right under part IV to freehold tenanted dwelling houses. Amendment No. 100 would narrow that provision to apply only to houses. That would be an unfair and acceptable retreat from the basic commitment in our manifesto.
The way in which we have set out the tenants' choice procedure is sensible. We will debate some aspects of it

later. I have no doubt that, once the procedures are fully set up, they will be welcomed by people who are dissatisfied with their existing council landlords.
It is sensible for a right relating to a house or flat to relate equally to the land that goes with the buildings, whether it is land or buildings with or without tenants. That was generally accepted in Committee. There is nothing unusual involved. We are talking about separate garages let with flats and open-plan gardens surrounding houses or flats in the unsatisfactory Radburn-style layouts. As we have put it in clause 86(1)(b), we are talking about land
reasonably required for occupation with
the homes defined in 86(1)(a).
Amendment Nos. 147 and 148, and to a lesser but still substantial extent amendment No. 101, would strike out the clause's provisions and leave a nonsense. I should have little difficulty in persuading Opposition Members not to press the amendment to a Division. I know that we have argued about other matters, but I do not think that the amendments would lead to anything that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) or the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) would want to support.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No.105, in page 60, line 7, leave out
'or will be so obliged at a date specified in such an order'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 104, in page 60, line 8, at end insert—
'a notice of seeking possession has been served in accordance with section 83 of the Housing Act 1985, on any of the grounds specified in Schedule 2 to that Act; or'.

No. 103, in page 60, line 10, at end insert—
'; or (c) he is in arrears of more than twice the weekly rent on the relevent date.'.

Mr. Howarth: The amendments are an attempt to clarify clause 86(3), which says:
A secure tenant is a qualifying tenant for the purposes of this Part unless"—
and then lists the exceptions.
The amendments try to add further to the understanding of what constitutes a secure tenant, to protect the interests of a legitimate tenant who might need his position clarifying. Our concern is that an arbitrary view might be taken of at what point the level of arrears would affect a tenant's rights under schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985. The amendments also try to clarify the legal position when an order to give up possession is made.
These are genuine amendments that are trying not to make a great point of principle but to amend the wording of the Bill to make it more understandable to those who might need to have it defined.

Mr. Waldegrave: These are serious amendments. Amendment No. 105 is designed to avoid an unnecessary restriction. It would allow rights to consultation under clause 95—and the ability to transfer under tenants' choice—to anyone with a possession order against them, providing it did not have immediate effect. I think that the amendment is concerned with those who have suspended possession orders against them.
The Government share the views that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Knowsley North (Mr.


Howarth) on amendment No. 105. Those who have suspended possession orders against them would include many people who would normally pay off their arrears. I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary because, although suspended orders may contain a date, it is not a date on which, according to the legal interpretation that I have been given, the tenant will be obliged to give up possession. On the contrary, it is often the date when he will become free from the threat of possession if he has paid off the arrears and if the other conditions attached to the suspended order are met.
The words that the amendment seeks to delete achieve the effect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman about that, and I hope that I have made the point perfectly clear to those outside.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 103 go in a completely different direction and I should not want to accept them. They would prevent a tenant from qualifying where a landlord had begun formal proceedings for possession, even when no court order had been made. Amendment No. 103 is stricter still and would rule out tenants in more than two weeks' rent arrears—which on this scale might he technical only—on the relevant date. I am strongly against those amendments.
I assure the hon. Member for Knowsley, North that, according to the legal advice that I have been given, the important point in amendment No. 105 is met by the present wording of the Bill.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. There is widespread concern that arrears and the way in which they are being treated is likely to cause serious problems.
The Minister conceded that many people get into arrears for legitimate reasons—often because of difficulties with processing housing benefit. Many people will have notional arrears until the housing benefit process sorts itself out, and they might fall foul of this part of the Bill. We are not satisfied that the clause will protect the interests of people who, for a variety of reasons—many of which are legitimate—find themselves in rent arrears.
I thank the Minister for clarifying amendment No. 105, but I am less than happy with his wholehearted refusal to take on board the points made about the other two amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 87

PERSONS BY WHOM RIGHT MAY BE EXERCISED

Amendments made: No. 368, in page 60, line 16 leave out
`has been approved by the Housing Corporation'
and insert
'is for the time being approved by the Corporation'.

No. 369, in page 60, line 18, leave out 'Housing'.

No. 370, in page 60, line 20, leave out `so approved' and
insert 'approved under this section'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 388, in page 60, line 20, at end insert—
`(1 A) The right conferred by this Part shall not be exercisable by a person approved under this section until after tenants of any dwelling-houses which such a person wishes to acquire have held a ballot on whether they wish their dwelling houses to be owned or managed by them co-operatively'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 398, in page 60, line 20, at end insert—
`(1A) A parish or community council may be approved by the Housing Corporation under this section.'.

No. 178, in page 60, line 35, at end insert—
`(5) The Housing Corporation shall have a duty to provide reasonable funding and training to tenants' co-operatives applying for approval under this Part;'.

No. 120, in clause 88, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
'This subsection shall not apply to an application made by a representative co-operative of tenants of those dwellings which are subject to the application'.

No. 397, in clause 89, page 61, line 38, at end add—
';and

(c) in respect of property covered by a management agreement of the type referred to in section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 where the agent is a tenant management co-operative—
(i) shall only include property covered by that management agreement; and,
(ii) shall include all property covered by that management agreement.'.

Mr. Hughes: Most of these amendments are concerned with the opportunity to form tenants' co-operatives. Amendment No. 388 is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), but amendment No. 397 has received all-party support. It emanates from the newly formed all-party group that has been set up to propagate the interests of co-operatives. The Minister for Housing and Planning was good enough to speak at its inaugural meeting. I hope that we shall receive from him a sympathetic response to the purport of the amendments.
The intention of amendment No. 398 is slightly different—to allow parish or community councils to become approved landlords.
It is interesting to look at the Conservative party manifesto of the last election. Its proposals for council housing say:
We will give groups of tenants the right to form tenant co-operatives, owning and running their management and budget for themselves. They will also have the right to ask other institutions to takeover their housing. Tenants who wish to remain with the local authority will he able to do so.
It was interesting—I applaud this—that tenant co- operatives—the opportunity for tenants to own and run their management and budget for themselves—was the first of those three options. The commitment in the manifesto that gives tenants rights to ask other institutions to take over their housing has slightly changed with the passage of time.
I think that hon. Members will agree that last week I had an interesting exchange with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time. No doubt Ministers have had an opportunity to read our exchanges. I asked the Prime Minister to explain the change in policy in part IV of the Bill, and the Prime Minister said:
I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants' co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations."—[Official Report, 23 June 1988; Vol. 172, c. 1257.]
The point that must be underlined is that tenants' co-operatives were listed as the first option.
Amendment No. 388 argues that tenants should have the opportunity to consider whether they wish to go down the co-operative road before any new landlord can start campaigning to take over their housing. There is a widespread belief in the House that, if part IV is to give tenants opportunities, they must have the chance first to


consider managing or owning their houses co-operatively and be given a specific time in which to do so. If that does not happen, there will be no realistic prospect of a tenants' co-operative. It will have been overtaken by alternatives from the private sector, which are already resourced and financed, and other approved landlords.
In Committee, the Minister did not make it clear exactly why he was not prepared to concede that tenants should have such an opportunity. I press him to be more explicit. As I said in Committee, his words about and support for co-operatives were encouraging. The Minister for Housing and Planning and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe)—often give examples of co-operatives that they have visited.
Paragraph 7 of "Tenants' Choice", which was published last week, states that the criteria for approval by landlords
and the way in which they are applied, will need to take account of the special position of tenant co-ops or other community-based applicants which it might be proposed to set up, with help and guidance from the Housing Corporation, to take over property under Tenants' Choice.
That is all well and good, but it begs the question: in practice, how will the Government, through the approval criteria mentioned in paragraph 7 and clause 87, take account of the special position of co-operatives? I hope that the Minister can answer that question in a detailed and explicit way.
I hope that the Minister can say something more than that he has just set up a review of co-operatives. Although I welcome the review, I am slightly surprised that the reporting date will be after the Bill becomes law. The Bill may become law in November, with the review date being in December, so there may be some difficulty about establishing the new regime for co-operatives. I hope that the Minister will tell us that tenants' co-operatives will have a special place, especially in the pre-selection procedure. There is no argument in law as to why tenants should not have a chance to choose the management or ownership of a co-operative before any new landlord can come forward.
There is another matter on which I have not yet heard a public comment or seen a written response. Discussions are taking place on the future of the Hayles estate in my constituency, a private estate taken over by the council. Hearings have been held at which a variety of prospective landlords can put their case. The first was Quality Street and the second was the Keniston housing association, and the local authority is soon to put its case.
A week ago, at the meeting with the Keniston housing association, when the council's leader was present, the proposal was to have an ownership co-operative that would employ a housing association for a limited period —say, five years—under a management agreement to manage the estate for the tenants. Having spoken to my colleague who speaks for my party on housing in Southwark and who lives in Kennington near the estate, I believe that the proposal provides for a lot of tenants' choice. They can choose initially who is to manage. That is consistent with the Government's arguments about tendering for the best service. Also, tenants have a continuing choice because, after five years, they can review

who managed their property and decide whether to manage it themselves. Have the Government considered that idea, and does it find favour?
5.45 pm
An opportunity must be provided within the time sequence allowed in the Bill for tenants to consider this co-operative option before any other bid can be made. This is an exemplary opportunity to have real tenants' choice, rather than the con, the misleading system, described in part IV. It does not mean a once-and-for-all, one-way tenants' choice. This choice will allow tenants to move into and out of different forms of management. I hope that, if Ministers share the Opposition's motivation —that we should extend freedom for tenants rather than de-municipalise, which seems to be the Government's primary motivation—the Government will support a move in this direction.
I shall leave it to other hon. Members to speak to the amendment that emanates from the co-operative movement and the National Federation of Housing Co-operatives, and I await the Minister's response. The amendment deals also with the proposal that parish and community councils be landlords. There is a good argument of principle that there should be devolution of housing management to the level nearest the people. It will mean less bureaucratic and more responsive management.
I am not just talking about devolution with an authority, although some authorities have pioneered this approach. It is one of the good things, I am proud to say, that has come about in Tower Hamlets. It has been tried by Walsall and Islington. Surely a parish or community council should be allowed to take over a small amount of housing, whether in a rural village with two council properties or in a town with a large number of council properties. I hope that there is no objection in principle to that proposal.
I have argued for co-operatives to be given a real choice; otherwise they will be pre-empted by financing arrangements and practical organisational matters, which are a little more difficult than in a straightforward transfer into the private sector or an existing housing association. I have argued that people should be given an opportunity to decide the type of tenants' co-operative they want. This should be the first option before other landlords make bids for their property. I have made a specific request that co-operatives should be treated helpfully and differently by the Government. I hope that the Government consider the opportunity for town and community councils to be landlords.

Mr. George Howarth: Amendment No. 397 is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Its purpose is to protect the interests of tenant management co-operatives. I should like the Minister to bear in mind the fact that tenant management co-operatives, unlike other forms of co-operatives, are not the owners of a property. They manage the property in a co-operative way on the basis of an agreement with the owners, which is almost always the local authority, and that puts them in an odd position.
The Government want to give tenants choice. The Minister has said repeatedly that tenants' choice involves the growth of the tenant management co-operative sector.


The difficulty is that, unless this amendment or a similar one is accepted, that sector may diminish as fast as it grows.
Could I explain that apparent anomaly? Under the "Tenants' Choice" provisions, a tenant management co-operative could find that it was lumped in with adjoining property, but such a co-operative, consisting of 100 properties, could be part of a wider estate of 300 or 400 properties. If a landlord were to make a bid for the property, the tenant management co-operative of 100 properties could he outvoted by the 300 or 400 adjacent properties. Apart from being outvoted, it could lead to the signing of the death warrant for properties in the co-operative. No further tenancies of the properties would be allowed. When properties became vacant, they would be transferred immediately to a new landlord. That would increase the number of vacant properties and it would also prevent internal transfers. Furthermore, the co-operative would be undermined by these provisions.
If there were a bid and the co-operative had to be treated as part of a wider group of properties, including those adjacent to it, it would undermine the co-operative principle: that a co-operative should be accepted as a corporate body that speaks collectively on behalf of its individual members. If co-operatives are to be treated as part of a wider group, the co-operative concept will be undermined.
If what I have predicted is to be prevented, the Government ought to accept the amendment. Alternatively, they could direct the Housing Corporation to take similar action. If the Minister can assure me that the latter course will he adopted, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment. I hope that, after the Minister's reply, we shall be able to reassure existing tenant management co-operatives that such a problem will not arise.

Mrs. Roe: Before I deal with the individual amendments, I should like to make it clear that the Government are strongly in favour of the opportunities that housing co-operatives can give enterprising people to take a leading part in the management of their homes. I cannot advise the House to accept any of this group of amendments, but I hope that hon. Members will not be displeased with much of what I have to say, particularly in relation to amendment No. 397.
Amendment No. 388 provides that no application under part IV can be made until tenants have been balloted on whether they want an ownership or a management co-operative. The amendment is unnecessary. If a co-operative is what most interested tenants want, that will become clear during the preliminary, competitive phase of consultation that the Housing Corporation will run. Housing Corporation help and advice will be available to follow that up. There is no need for a separate formal ballot at the outset, confined to co-operatives.
An arrangement under which tenants in an ownership co-operative might employ an agent—for example, a housing association—to provide management services for a shorter or a longer period would not be prevented by the Bill. We would often welcome such a move.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. However, will she make it clear that when it is first brought into the discussion, the Housing Corporation will have a duty to alert all tenants to the possibility of a

co-operative being formed and to make sure that tenants fully understand what that might mean? Will that possibility be put on the agenda by the Housing Corporation in all cases?

Mrs. Roe: The Housing Corporation will ensure that tenants know what alternatives are available to them. The ability to set up co-operatives will he spelt out to tenants, and they will be able to consider such a possibility.
Amendment No. 398 provides that a parish or community council may be approved by the Housing Corporation under clause 87. As parish and community councils do not currently have statutory powers to acquire and run rented housing, that would newly confer on them, in a limited way, the status of statutory housing authorities. Useful though the job that these councils do on other matters often is, they do not represent a pool of housing management know-how and experience of the kind that the Housing Corporation will he looking for when using its power to approve applicants under clause 87.
There is nothing, however, to stop individual parish or community councils with the right motivation and experience helping tenants to set up their transfer, even to the extent of helping them to set up a new tenant-led landlord, such as a community-based housing association. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will accept that that is the best way forward.
I am broadly sympathetic to amendments Nos. 178 and 120. They share the Government's aim of helping tenants to have a fuller say in running their own lives. I agree without reservation with the principle that underlies amendment No. 178, but I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment. 'Tenants' choice' transactions are designed to be self-financing, without subsidy from public sources. That is the point of basing prices on tenant market value. However, for the reasons that I have given, the Government accept that tenants' co-operatives are special and that when they are being set up they may require non-capital support to make an application under tenants' choice.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said that adequate support of this non-capital kind for training and for similar setting-up costs would be made available. I repeat that undertaking now. Possible means of support that already exist include the ability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to give financial assistance for housing management under section 16 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. There is power for the Housing Corporation, under section 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, to give grants for the promotion of housing associations, including co-operatives. I expect the Housing Corporation to give information, advice and assistance—which in some cases might include training for would-be co-operatives—to tenants under the new powers that we have proposed for them in new clause 46.
The review of housing co-operatives that was recently announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and that is to report by the end of the year will consider, among other things, whether the existing institutional and financial arrangements for supporting co-operatives are right. I share the aim of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of helping co-operatives


with initial training costs, but I hope that he will accept that to achieve that aim will require more, in practice, than a declaratory amendment such as amendment No. 178.
I share, too, the underlying aim of amendment No. 120, which also promotes the formation of co-operatives, but I believe that a trumping power over existing applications would be unnecessary. I cannot imagine that the Housing Corporation would approve an application by a third party to include an area where there was clear evidence of tenant preference for a co-operative solution. Tenants' views on such points would emerge clearly by means of the initial beauty contests. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will accept that the amendment is unnecessary.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North will be pleased to hear that I sympathise with the principle that underlies amendment No. 397. It is reasonable that people who have been interested in and active enough in the management of their own homes to vote together for a tenant management co-operative should be able to decide among themselves whether they wish to see further change. To make applications that included property that was subject to such a co-operative agreement conterminous with that agreement would also make a good deal of administrative sense.
If the transfer proceeded, the agreement would obviously cease to be relevant, while if the vote went against the transfer it would be unaffected. We wish to insist that, subject to this refinement, tenants of management co-operatives have in all respects the same right to consultation and choice under part IV as other public sector tenants. I am advised that the amendment is not technically accurate, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to withdraw it I shall undertake that a Government amendment to achieve the underlying intention will be prepared and brought forward in another place.

Mr. George Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply on amendment No. 397. Clearly, there is no disagreement between us on the principle that I tried to establish, and I am happy about that.

6 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: My comment is similar to that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I look forward to an amendment on similar lines to ours being introduced in another place. That would give great encouragement to the co-operative movement, to members of the all-party group in the House of Commons and to their supporters in the other place. I noted what the Minister said about parish and community councils. I am not clearly persuaded that there is no opportunity to look at that again, but I am certainly willing, along with the Minister, to look at the matter again, and I shall reflect on what she said.
The Minister appears to have given certain undertakings that, if there is a clear expression of support for co-operatives, it will not be prejudiced in any way. The key may lie in the words about consideration of the financial support that may be forthcoming and how that will be part of the review of co-operatives. We await the decision of that review with impatience, but there may well need to be financial support other than that about which the Minister spoke and about which her hon. Friend spoke in

Committee. Subject to those cautions and reservations, I should say that in general terms we appear to be making progress, and I do not wish to push my amendment to a vote.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 371, in page 60, line 25, at end insert—
`(2A) The Corporation shall establish (and may from time to time vary) criteria to be satisfied by a person seeking approval under this section and, without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2) above, in deciding whether to give such approval, the Corporation shall have regard to whether the person satisfies those criteria.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: Government amendment No. 372.

No. 108, in page 60, line 28, after 'description', insert
`but only after consultation with that person's existing tenants, if any, and having taken account of any adverse reports as to the performance of that person in discharging landlord functions'.

Government amendments Nos. 373 and 374.

No. 109, in page 60, line 35, at end insert—
`(5) In considering an application for approval under this Part, the Housing Corporation shall have a responsibility to ensure standards of landlordism no less favourable to tenants than their existing landlords, and shall have particular regard to and shall make all reasonable enquiries to correctly ascertain:—

(a) the applicants' housing management experience,
(b) the applicants' housing management performance,
(c) the site of the applicants' existing housing stock in relation to the number of dwellings to be acquired,
(d) the applicants' arrangements for consultation with their existing tenants,
(e) the applicants' policy with regard to—
(i) allocations,
(ii) rent levels,
(iii) rent review procedures,

No. 110, in page 60, line 35, at end insert—
'(5) Approvals shall be reviewed on an annual basis.
(6) Every person approved under subsection (1) above shall be required to provide the Housing Corporation with an annual report of their landlord functions; and to provide a copy of that report for the local authority concerned; and to lodge a copy with the local public library.'

No. 179, in page 60, line 35, at end insert—
'(5) An approval under this section shall not be given to any person or persons who have acted in serious breach of the regulations laid down in section 89(2)(b) below.
(6) An approval under this section shall be revoked by the Housing Corporation if in its opinion a person or persons have acted in serious breach of the regulations laid down in section 89 (b) below.'.

No. 121, in clause 89 page 61, line 38, at end insert
`and
`(c) shall be accompanied by proof of the person's approval under section 87 above'.

Government amendment No. 375.

Mr. Waldegrave: This is an important group of Government amendments and I shall put them in context. They run with new clauses 45 and 46, which we shall debate later.
First, we propose that the Housing Corporation should provide information, advice and assistance to tenants, including those who want to set up their own new landlord bodies, and to applicants and prospective applicants. This will include what might be called a marriage broking service, where necessary, between the two. New clause 46 would provide the power for this. Secondly, where there is tenant interest in transfer, the corporation will, wherever


possible, arrange a preliminary test of tenant opinion involving informal consultation of tenants by more than one potential applicant in competition with one another.
Government amendment No. 373 would give the corporation power to make approval conditional on undertakings by applicants. My right hon. Friend will use his power under the Housing Associations Act 1985 to issue directions to the corporation to ensure that all the approvals that it gives are conditional on an undertaking to take part in the preliminary beauty contest and to abide by the outcome.
In terms of approval, Government amendment No. 371 provides for the corporation to establish criteria which will, as I undertook in Committee, be published. The central issues for these criteria will be stability, viability, competence and long-term commitment to providing rented housing for those who need it. The criteria will, in effect, provide guarantees for tenants of the kind that we shall be discussing in the context of Government new clause 30 for housing association tenants. I shall return to this in a moment.
After the statutory procedures begin, the corporation will keep tabs on applicants' progress for consistency with the approval criteria and undertakings. The power in Government amendment No. 373 to make approval conditional on undertakings will be relevant here. It will be used to set procedural guidelines for applicants to inform tenants when a formal application is made and tell them when various other key points of the procedures have been reached. Amendment No. 374 makes it clear that failure to meet criteria or to fulfil an undertaking could lead to revocation of approval. If approval were revoked at this stage—and Government amendment No. 374 sets out the procedures for this—the transaction would, of course, fall.
Tenants' guarantees, to which I have referred, are vital. In Committee we discussed the implications in this respect of the emergence of new types of landlord, not only under tenants' choice, but also through large-scale voluntary disposals of dwellings by the public sector and under the new basis for the operation of registered housing associations provided in part II of the Act. In particular, we must give any public sector tenant who is contemplating transfer to a new landlord assurances about the terms that will be on offer to him and the standards that he can expect. For each branch of the social housing sector, these guarantees will have to be tackled in a slightly different way, but by reference to consistent principles on which tenants can rely.
New clause 30, which we shall debate later, relates specifically to registered housing associations. It empowers the Housing Corporation, subject to consultation with the housing association movement and to the approval of the Secretary of State, to issue guidance to associations on the management of their housing stock. This will give the basis for a tenants' guarantee, and will provide a list—not an exclusive one—of matters that may be covered.
This guidance will have an important read-across to tenants' choice tenants because it will be based on the consistent principles that I have mentioned. It will comprise guidance on those for whom housing should be provided; and on those who are inadequately housed or homeless, and whose housing requirements cannot be met at prices within their means, or at all, elsewhere in the local market. Groups with special difficulties, such as ethnic minorities and the disabled, should get special attention. It will deal with the terms that tenants should be offered.
In addition to the statutory assured tenancy requirements, I would expect the corporation to insist on some contractual rights appearing in tenancy agreements. Details are for discussion and consultation, but some familiar elements from the old tenants' charter—for example the rights to exchange, to take in lodgers, to carry out improvements and so on—will certainly reappear.
The guidance must deal with how rents are to be set and reviewed. I want to ensure that the rent policies of associations and other tenants' choice landlords are compatible with the circumstances of the client groups that I have mentioned. It must deal with maintenance and repair and clear policies, procedures, targets and responsibilities will have to be set out. Above all, in terms of tenant relations, associations must communicate effectively with tenants about their rights and needs.
The full benefit of the guarantees associated with this guidance will be available automatically to all tenants transferring under tenants' choice to landlords that are registered housing associations. The arrangements that we are proposing will ensure that the formidable array of supervisory powers that the corporation enjoys are available to enforce the guarantees on such landlords.
For tenants of tenants' choice landlords other than registered housing associations, the ability of the corporation to set criteria and demand undertakings linked to approval will, as I have said, be used to provide comparable tenants' guarantees. These will cover the same ground and embody the same principles and will be enforceable through the corporation's power to revoke approval, through the applicant's contract with his transferring tenants, or both.
We envisage that, should disputes arise between tenants' choice landlords and their tenants before or after transfer, the corporation would be able to give tenants support in exceptional cases in resolving them. If necessary, that will be done through helping them to bring proceedings. Government new clause 45 will provide for this, and assistance under clause 45 will be available even if the acquiring body has ceased to have approved status.
Of the Government amendments that I have not mentioned, No. 372 empowers the corporation to charge fees for approval. Amendment No. 375 makes consequential adjustments to time limits where a notice of revocation is in force for a time but is withdrawn before it takes effect. All the powers and duties that I have mentioned would apply equally to the Housing Corporation and Housing in Wales.

Mr. John Battle: The powers that the Minister suggests seem to transfer the strategic housing planning powers from the local authority to the Housing Corporation. Therefore, will the local authority powers he overridden by the Housing Corporation powers, or will local authority powers be repealed?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, the local authority power will not be overridden. We are saying that the tenants transferring, for example, under tenants' choice, must have guarantees about the nature of their landlord. That is why we are dealing with the matter in the way we are. It is essential that as much as possible will be carried through in a legally binding contract between the tenant and the new landlord. It is equally important that, where the tenant's rights rest upon the law in that way, he should have a friend, potentially in court, to enable him to make those legal


powers work, which is why we put forward the additional authority for the Housing Corporation in that way later in the Bill.

Ms. Primarolo: I understood that the Minister said that the Housing Corporation will give support and advice to tenants who are transferred to a new landlord and then find themselves in conflict over this contractual relationship. How will the Housing Corporation set itself up as an advice-giving agency on the necessary scale, and what funding will be provided for it to do so?

Mr. Waldegrave: It will have a more powerful role than that of an advice-giving agency. It is potentially an agency that could provide legal support and it would be undertaking the same sort of role that is available to my right hon. Friend in certain circumstances where test cases and others can be undertaken.

Ms. Primarolo: Test cases.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, as the hon. Lady says, it applies only in test cases. I would not want to mislead her into thinking that that was the exact analogy. I can give the hon. Lady the undertaking that the Housing Corporation will be funded to undertake this.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will doubtless be pressing us to go further. I hope that he will recognise that we have gone a long way to meet a number of the principal concerns that were expressed in Committee and in meetings inside and outside the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not as far as the Minister said he would go in Committee. As far as we are concerned, these Government amendments amount to the Minister's surrender note to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman had to say that, but it is not true. Those outside the House who have analysed this know that the tenants' guarantee that we are offering to all those who are transferring under any of these powers from present public sector housing either to other forms of public sector housing or to independent rented housing meet the clear commitment that we gave in Committee. There is absolutely no doubt about it. We shall be debating other aspects of the guarantee later in the day, but I have referred to it now because the aspects all hang together.

Mr. McCartney: What is the position following the transfer of housing stock to a private sector landlord when subsequently the company is sold off and those who are then in control of the company are not the sort who would be approved by the Housing Corporation or the tenants? Will the Housing Corporation be able to call a fresh ballot so that the decision can be reconsidered after the ownership of a company has changed from that approved by the Housing Corporation? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that the Minister had surrendered to the Secretary of State, but I think that the Minister is a shark in sheep's clothing: in Committee and on Report he has smiled and given us promises but come back with nothing.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Those are strong words, but they are not justified. The original plan that I sketched out in Committee, with the help of my

hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I called a charter. We have come to see that it is better to carry it forward, looking at the three different positions, as a tenants' guarantee, as it is the tenants, not the landlords, whose interests need to be protected by the House. Hon. Members have nothing else to say about this because the policy was developed not as a result of pressure from them but with the help of my hon. Friends in Committee, and the intentions that I set out in Committee are clearly met by the amendments in this and subsequent groups.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question for the Minister. Why, even now, on the last day of Report, do we not have the terms of what was originally called the social charter and then called the tenants' guarantee? Why have we not seen it, despite promises? What has been the delay?

Mr. Waldegrave: The commitment I gave was that on Third Reading we should have a substantial debate on this matter. We are having a substantial debate now, and if the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would recognise that I have set out the principles that lie behind the tenants' guarantee. It affects those transferring under tenants' choice. I have said how it relates to the permissions that the Secretary of State will give under what might be called the 'Rochford' transfers or any other transfers.
We have gone further than we said we would in Committee in one crucial respect, in that we have said that, for the first time, the Housing Corporation will be given explicit powers to take into account, in the way in which it deals with management associations, quality of management and other such matters, and not just propriety. That is a major step forward and has been welcomed by those outside the House.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked the Minister a specific question, which was: if, after a transfer to a landlord private company, it were to be sold, would the Housing Corporation enable the tenants to have another ballot?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point for debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Waldegrave: The question does not arise, for two reasons. First, the Secretary of State has control over further disposals; secondly. and more importantly, the contracts to which I have referred, which will include the tenants' guarantee, will already have been built into the leases and will carry legal force, whoever is the underlying landlord. The point is a misunderstanding, as quite a number of the hon. Gentleman's points are.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith will no doubt argue that the approval criteria that the corporation will establish should cover, among other matters, management experience and performance, and it will do so. The hon. Gentleman will see these matters referred to in paragraph 9 of the explanatory document we published last week. I confirm that the corporation will be looking at track record on these matters when considering applications for approval, so the hon. Gentleman's underlying concern is largely covered already.
I agree, too, that, during the "beauty contest", tenants affected will often want to compare notes with applicants' existing tenants. I would expect the applicants, prompted if necessary by the corporation, to arrange this as a natural


part of "setting out their stall", but there is surely no need for a statutory requirement. The tenants' most substantial safeguards will lie elsewhere—in the "beauty contest" as a whole and in the range of other tenants' guarantees that we shall be making available. Amendment No. 108 would, moreover, be unacceptable in any case because it would require the corporation to take into account every adverse report. We discussed this at length in Committee, and it is obviously absurd.
The hon. Gentleman has set out in amendment No. 109 his shopping list of criteria for landlord approval. We have thought it better in amendment No. 371 to give the Housing Corporation the responsibility, drawing on its existing experience and on consultation, to establish criteria, rather than to tie it rigidly to statutory ones. Some of the factors identified in the hon. Gentleman's amendment will be relevant to all, and all of them relevant to some, approvals. In considering all applicants, the corporation will have to look at housing management, experience and performance—embracing satisfactory arrangements for tenant consultation—financial status and stability. Therefore, that point is met.
I cannot go as far as the hon. Gentleman is proposing
to ensure standards of landlordism no less favourable to tenants than their existing landlords".
That would be a rather small consolation to some tenants who would be seeking a transfer. That is what the arrangements that I have outlined are intended to achieve, and the very broadly defined duty that he proposes to lay on the corporation to answer for the applicants' performance would add little or nothing to them.
Amendment No. 110 would require approvals to be reviewed annual. I certainly envisage that there will be annual elements in the corporation's monitoring of approved landlords; submission of annual accounts is an obvious example. On broader questions of management performance, which I suspect is what the hon. Gentleman has mainly in mind, strict annuality would be burdensome and unnecessary. Given the range of the guarantees that tenants will have, I do not see strong arguments for requiring approved landlords to produce formal annual reports for deposit with local authorities.
We achieve the intention of amendments Nos. 179 and 121 by different means. Amendment No. 179 would exclude from approved status any person in breach of the preliminary "beauty contest" procedures. For reasons that we shall discuss when we reach amendment No. 112, we see the "beauty contest" as an informal, rather than a statutorily regulated, process, but the corporation will make it a condition of any approval given under clause 87 to applicants that they undertake to agree to participate in that preliminary procedure.
On amendment No. 121, I undertook in Committee that the application form under clause 89 would be prescribed and would require the applicant to give a statement of the terms of his approved status. The power to prescribe the form is to be found in clause 102. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has accepted that this important but very detailed point can be dealt with in that way.
This is an important group of amendments. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition now welcomes the policy set out here, with four conditions. Those conditions—a proper voting system, a secret ballot, independent scrutiny, safeguards for tenants' future rights and appropriate landlords' and tenants' rights to veto—are all met in the Bill. I hope to see the right hon.

Gentleman in the Lobby with us tonight. It would be characteristic of his relationship with his party if we did and, on that basis, we hope to carry forward this successful policy into the future.

Mr. Clive Soley: I wish to put the Minister right on a number of issues, so that we can stop dealing in simple assumptions and start dealing with reality.
The failures in the Government's approach to the matter are, first, that the conditions are far too weak; secondly, that they do not go wide enough; thirdly, that they are the product of a mess where the Government's proposals have moved through a series of stages; and, fourthly, that they do nothing to assist either the good private landlord or the housing associations, or to give real power to the tenant.
If one is being offered a charter or even a guarantee, one looks at the small print to see what powers one can bring to bear if something goes wrong. One can look at this and cannot even find the small print because it is not there. In Committee, the Minister said that it would be wrong if we could not debate the substantive details on the Floor of the House on Third Reading. We do not have the charter. It does not exist. It is simply an obligation on the Housing Cororation to do certain things.
The Minister has made great play of assured tenancies, but we all remember the previous Housing Minister talking about a system of approval and how important it was. He reassured everyone that, every time one of those new assured tenancies was given, it would be given to a landlord who had been approved by the Department. Between 6,000 and 8,000 such tenancies were set up and, when the present Minister took office, he said in Committee, "We'll have to get rid of those tenancies because, frankly, it's a matter of crossing our fingers when we give that assurance." That is how weak the system is.
The test should always be whether the tenant can pick up the guarantee or the social landlords' charter, go to a lawyer and say, "Take my case before the courts. Fight the case on that basis. Here is the charter spelt out before you, signed by the landlord. We will decide it in court." 'The tenant does not have that power. It does not exist. The measure does nothing to help anyone—not the private landlord, the tenant or the housing association.
How did the Government get into that mess? Initially, they were prepared to consider the possibility of a housing association tenancy, but they then moved, because they did not like the idea. They did not want to give a housing association tenancy, so they began to talk about the social landlords' charter, which was then downgraded to a guarantee.
The Government have come up with the worst possible hotch-potch which affects some private landlords, housing associations and others and does not give what it should have given—a clear statement of the position for housing associations and then a clear cover to all private landlords. That was an opportunity to make a reality of the very things that the Government say they want to do, including protecting tenants from bad landlords, but the measure does not do that.
There is a need for an approval system for landlords generally, just as we have environmental health officers to check the standards of food. The provision of accommodation and the way in which people can be removed from their accommodation is so important to


those people that we cannot just rely on the law being used in a simple way if, for example, a tenant can afford a lawyer or obtain legal aid, or if he is on the point of being evicted and can still manage to find a lawyer.
I wish to quote from a letter from a lawyer in the firm of Lloyd and Pratt in Newport, Gwent:
Almost by definition most tenants will or should be Legal-Aid-eligible, particularly in this area, and it is my impression that tenants which suffer at the hands of rogue landlords are very hesitant before commencing any proceedings at all—they seem to fear the landlords too much even to take them on through the Courts. In the cases that come to my mind we have almost had to lean on the tenants to keep them going in the case and not to throw their hand in.
That is the experience of just about every housing agency in this country. The problem is that tenants in such a weak position, if they are harassed or driven out, cannot fight back effectively, yet we are told that it is sufficient for the Housing Corporation to give some sort of approval, without necessarily knowing very much about the future landlord who will take over. The Government have introduced only minimal protection. I accept that the Government have made some concessions, but they have made only the weakest. The provisions do nothing to help any good landlord, whether a housing association or a private landlord.
Rochford district council is transferring properties to the Crouch Valley housing association, despite the fact that 300 out of 400 tenants said that they did not want to be transferred. The Minister was right to say that it is a difficult matter because it transgresses several amendments and new clauses. We shall deal with the issue of voting when we debate amendment No. 170. I do not want to refer to that in detail now, but it is a classic example. Tonight's "World in Action" programme, of which I and a number of hon. Members have had an advanced viewing, is a damning indictment of tenants' inability to fight back when they are taken over. That criticism is most disturbing.
I want to deal with the Secretary of State's involvement in this matter. He owned a property at 69 Warwick way. There is no doubt that he took a personal interest in that property. That is right and proper. He had a long leasehold in that property from 1968, and he applied for planning permission to erect an additional storey and convert the property into bed-sits and self-contained flats.
In April 1978, that house was taken over by the Cornerstone housing association, which put in a planning application to develop the house into four self-contained flats. I understand that, by that time, Cornerstone was the owner of the house. The tenants had objected to the planning application. Westminster city council was told later that the tenants had agreed to purchase the completed flats, or were making other arrangements. That was disputed. In 1979, the property was sold to Seniorforge Ltd. and, in December 1979, Westminster city council served statutory notices under section 45 of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 4 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
6.30 pm
In 1980, a Westminster city council environmental health officer reported:
The house is in a state of substantial disrepair due mainly to a lack of routine maintenance.

In October 1980, the council served a notice under section 9(1) of the Housing Act 1957 because parts of the property were unfit for human habitation. In November, the council served a management order under section 15 of the Housing Act 1961. In 1981, those notices had expired without compliance by Seniorforge. In June 1982, Seniorforge obtained a High Court possession order on the ground that it needed to undertake certain works. The order required it to rehouse tenants in the house after the work had been completed.
There are then delays—

Mr. Waldegrave: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain to me the relevance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to the Bill and to tenants' choice?

Mr. Soley: My remarks have everything to do with the Bill and tenants' choice. I am talking about transfer of properties from one owner to another. No matter how good, knowledgeable, and well-intentioned a landlord may be, that which I have described will take place if the powers of the local authority or of the Housing Corporation are inadequate. The trouble is that current legislation is being weakened by the Government's amendments.
The delays to which I was referring continued for two years. In 1983, Westminster city council, which is not the world's greatest council, was found guilty of maladministration by the ombudsman. That amounted basically to delays. The council was still paying for bed-and-breakfast accommodation for some of the tenants. Despite the refusal of planning permission, Seniorforge implemented the scheme. The council told tenants to move back into the premises and said that it would stop paying their hotel bills if they failed to do so.
It is alleged that the tenants were refused keys. There were allegations by tenants of harassment, and a court case followed. A photograph was produced which showed a tenant covered in blood. An arrest took place, but it was counter-alleged that the tenant injured herself with a meat tenderiser. The case was dismissed. Further complaints of harassment continued to be made. The rent was not registered and the flat concerned is alleged to have been sold in breach of grant conditions. In other words, Westminster ratepayers were owed money.
Further planning applications by Seniorforge were refused, but were later accepted after a simple change in the plans which meant that a bedsitter was described as a store room. On that basis, planning permission was granted. Tenants were then evicted and a demand was made that Seniorforge should repay grant moneys.
The Minister has questioned the relevance of the example which I have given. The House knows that the Minister has sold the Bill throughout on the ground that, by removing rent and other controls, it will be possible to increase the amount of private rented property that comes on to the market without increasing the dangers that are posed by the van Hoogstratens and Rachmans. I have provided a classic example of what will happen following the transfer of ownership from a good landlord who has done nothing wrong under a system which does not require any approval. There is no clearer way of establishing the truth.
In the example to which I have referred, two families were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for two and a


half years. The cost of providing that accommodation for them was met by the ratepayers, not by the company. Property speculation is clearly involved. Housing associations and councils are used to rehouse tenants who were the liability of the company, in this instance Seniorforge. Local authority powers were not exercised properly or effectively. Against this background, the Minster is weakening the powers that will be available to stop the practice. Legal aid will not be available——

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Will he explain how his allegations could possibly become realities?

Mr. Soley: We argued throughout our consideration of the Bill in Committee that there was a case for a housing association tenancy. We said that there was a case for going for some sort of social landlord contract. We argued that there should be approval. We contended that an approval system should ensure that a tenant could protect his rights.
The Minister appears to be becoming more and more agitated or worried. He has said repeatedly that the Bill can be enacted without recreating the dangers of Rachmanism. Our worries should not be confined to the van Hoogstratens of this world. I am troubled that a good landlord will be able to sell property without any check being made on the purchaser. Even when an assurance is given, it will not be backed up properly by law.
More importantly, we know from the Government's record that they tend to move the goalposts, so that today's assurance is not relevant tomorrow. There is nothing in the Bill to stop a future Minister making it much easier to obtain an assurance. The Secretary of State or anyone else can be a good and proper landlord and do his job properly. If he can sell his property under a system that does not require approval, I say in all seriousness, with the greatest force that I can command, that the Government should produce a Bill that offers much more protection to tenants than this one. It is so weak as to be unreasonable beyond belief.
As I have said, the Minister has questioned the relevance of my remarks. He must understand that the Cornerstone housing association does not emerge covered in glory from the example which I have presented to the House. The Minister is saying, in effect, "This does not trouble me too much," but that is the sort of organisation that could take over a property from a good and proper landlord. Indeed, that is exactly what happened. Everyone, from the Secretary of State and the Minister, must know that that is wrong, dangerous and bad.
No matter how good a landlord or individual members of a housing association may be, good intentions and knowledge will come to nothing at the end of the day unless the tenant has some guaranteed way in which he can make his powers felt in a court of law. Tenants must be given full support when it is necessary for them to take that course.
Did you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the way in which the Minister slipped through his new clause, which he thought would meet our anxieties? He said that in "exceptional cases" the Housing Corporation would offer assistance. There will be so many exceptional cases that the Housing Corporation will not offer assistance. The Minister knows that legal aid is being cut and that it will not be available to many tenants.
In my example, the tenants moved to what is clearly a bad landlord. It is not a van Hoogstraten or Rachman-type organisation, but it is undesirable in the way in which it is operating. What are the tenants supposed to do? Under this legislation, the answer is, nothing. What do we seek to do? We say in amendment No. 109 that there should be approval criteria, and I argue that the criteria should be made available to all landlords. We must have some way of ensuring that tenants are not ripped off when moving from one landlord to another. The criteria include the applicant's housing management experience, his performance, the state of his existing stock, consultation with tenants, rent levels, review procedures, equal opportunities and standard terms of tenancy offers. What would be wrong if the Minister said, on behalf of the Government, "We accept that"?
If the Minister is serious about stopping those like Rachman and von Hoogstraten, surely the way forward is to ensure that greater powers are available to tenants. The Minister said, in effect, in Committee, "Hoogstraten ism took place under existing legislation, so that is no good." Unfortunately, he will weaken current legislation. He seems to be saying, "As landlords can do that now, we cannot really stop them. The Housing Corporation will be able to deal with some landlords. We shall leave it at that, in the hope that there will not be other examples of bad landlordism." There will be other examples. They will come about when people who have done a perfectly good job as landlords transfer property. The Minister will turn his head and say, "I'm sorry. I can't do anything about this, because it's not covered by the law." The Minister will have to say that, because he has refused our requests to include that provision in the Bill. If we could include that provision, that would be the way forward.
I ask the Minister to accept our amendments if he is serious about stopping the gross abuses by a minority of landlords. I ask him above all to bear in mind—as the Secretary of State understands from his experience—and to take into account the crucial point at which a property is transferred. Things can begin to go wrong at that point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We have awaited this debate for a long time. From the Committee Hansards I notice that the Minister made various fairly explicit commitments about what should have happened by the time that we reached this stage in our proceedings. He anticipated that it might take the civil servants a bit of time to do the work, and that was certainly true. He clearly made commitments on many occasions in Committee. I will cite only one example, from column 1177:
Some of what we are proposing will be in directions to the Housing Corporation, but the outline and the powers will be attached to the Bill. It would be fair to produce a discussion document or something of that nature in an outline form, on what was not in the Bill before it has left the House of Commons. Some of it will be in directions to the Housing Corporation; some of it will be on the face of the Bill. It would be fair to the Committee and to the House to give a rounded picture of what we propose.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) intervened to say:
Perhaps I can clarify the matter. I understand that the Minister will introduce an amendment, though it will not cover everything. Is that correct?
To that, the Minister's answer, which was even timed at 7.30 pm, was:
There will be an amendment to the Bill from which this structure will depend.


Technically we have an amendment, but in terms of outline structure, this is about as outline an amendment as has ever been drafted.
The Minister continued:
I am going further, and I have not taken the advice of my officials on this because they will have to do more work than they expected. I think it would be fair to sketch out in descriptive terms, for the debate on Third Reading and in another place, a complete account of what we shall in due course direct the Housing Corporation to do in those parts that are subject to direction as well as those that are subject to primary legislation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 February 1988, c. 1177.]
I listened to the Minister, and I accept that he complied with that part of his undertaking. For the first time, he has set out in descriptive terms an account of what in due course he and his colleagues will direct the Housing Corporation to do. If the Minister is honest, he cannot say that it is a complete account, because there is a document to come. It certainly will not be a discussion document or "something of that nature". If it is, it must be the most invisible discussion document that the Government have ever produced because "we ain't seen nothing yet."
We have asked why there has been a delay. The answer may be that the proposal has undergone a few metamorphoses from being the tenants' charter to the tenants' guarantee and then the tenants' will-o'-the-wisp by the time it reached Report stage.
It is important that we ask why the long-promised approval system is still not ready, after a much delayed and resumed Report stage. Apart from the constitutional question whether it is right to vote for something that we have not seen, we must ask other questions.
Will Ministers at the Department of the Environment state categorically on the record that those who undertake what is to be called the tenants' guarantee, those who undertake to write that guarantee into their agreements, will be organisations not from the public or private sector, but in a separate social sector? I asked that question in Committee and it is important that we have an answer, because otherwise the undertaking that they would not be in the private sector will have been breached.
Will rents in all cases be affordable for the tenants? It is no good saying that we will negotiate with individual housing associations or approved landlord, landlord by landlord, case by case, to meet their client groups unless the tenants are guaranteed an affordable rent and there is a guarantee that it remains affordable. There is no point in the rent being affordable at the beginning and then slipping out of range quickly thereafter.
6.45 pm
The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister say that if people do not want to go to the new sector they need not do so. That is all very well, but council tenants—as in some sense they will remain—will have to pay the rents charged by the private sector. At the end of the day, one of the most crucial qualities of a contract or tenancy agreement is the level of rent.
I will continue to refer to affordable rents until we get somewhere. We are talking about a social sector. We should talk about a sector which ensures that people pay rents that they can afford. The Government appear to be intervening at the beginning, but then effectively pulling out of the picture except on rare occasions. The

Government will have given their blessing, via the Housing Corporation, to various approved landlords. They will be approved because they will have signed the tenants' guarantee, whatever that is; it is yet to be revealed.
Once that happens, in only the rarest cases will the Government have any role in policing the contract. It will be up to the tenant to go to court. Unless we know that the terms are continuing and cannot be broken later, that the terms cannot be negotiated for two, three or five years and then renegotiated in a way which was unhelpful for tenants, there is no guarantee. If a tenant who is secure, with a whole range of guarantees underwritten by this Government, then has those guarantees replaced by a time-expired guarantee, he has no real guarantee. We all know about guarantees. They are fine if something breaks down in the 12 months for which the guarantee applies. After that time, guarantees are not, to use the old cliché, worth the paper they are printed on.
My next question is slightly more technical, but is something that the Minister has not answered in detail. What happens if an approved landlord goes wrong after being approved? I understand that we cannot foresee everything. Some people may look good and have excellent records, but things might go wrong. They may run into financial difficulties and not perform their landlord obligations. They may suddenly realise that the only way to make ends meet is to raise the rents, and they become bad landlords because they are in trouble. The Housing Corporation may say that it will withdraw its support and approval, but that may be a bit late if things have already begun to go wrong.
Tenants need to know that they have the power to go to court to rescue a situation. The nearest parallel to that is the shareholder or debtor suing a bankrupt company. It is no consolation normally for people owed money by bankrupt companies to know that they can pursue them through the courts. People do not normally get anywhere in those circumstances. The matter is made worse if people are worried about the roof over their heads.
I do not want to prolong the debate, but this is a very important subject and we were promised a major debate on it a long time ago. We were promised the document, we were promised the deed, and we were promised the words—in writing. We have been given none of them. The Government cannot expect us to buy something blind, and we shall not do so.

Mr. David Blunkett: These clauses have two clear objectives. One is to dismember and fragment local authority housing. The other is to make it easier in the long term to make the maximum amount of money out of housing need. In discussing the safeguards that tenants may expect under the Government's proposals, it might be useful to hear the words of some of their supporters and of those who are running private tenancies. Mr. Archer is the spokesperson for Sheffield Private Landlords Association, and he took part in a debate with Sheffield's housing chairman on Radio Sheffield on 10 June. He was very honest and put into clear language what many Conservative Members know in their hearts to be true. He said:
It is legitimate to harass private tenants in order to secure our investments.


That is no longer outrageous in terms of Government policy, because what has already happened in the private market has been heavily subsidised with the connivance of the DOE and the DHSS for a very long time.
There is the case of Elwyn Morgan in Merthyr Tydfil, who in the last financial year made out out of the DHSS —it is not disputed by him—an estimated £104,000 in respect of two houses in multiple occupation. Recently I asked the Secretary of State whether the regulations which lift that landlord out of the existing safeguards will be reviewed in the light of the Bill, and whether the DHSS and the DOE will get together, to try to eliminate the abuses that are occurring. His answer was straightforward and comprised one word: no. The Government have no intention of safeguarding tenants against those who wish to make money out of them.
In the Merthyr Tydfil case, tenants signed over—legally, but, in my view, immorally—their benefits. Eighty per cent. of the benefits paid to his tenants was collected by the landlord using a secure locker, and less than 20 per cent. was handed over to the tenants. For that, they were given just bed and breakfast. If there are no safeguards under the existing mishmash, it is unlikely, as my hon. Friends have already said, that safeguards will be included in legislation that we do not yet know will be acceptable in terms of tenants' rights.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked what will happen if an approved landlord "goes wrong". What will happen if an approved landlord seeks disapproval? Having exchanged houses, and perhaps having exchanged tenants over a period of time, the landlord may feel that no obligation should exist. Under this year's Budget, such a landlord is entitled to tax relief under the business expansion scheme—which, as has been made clear in answers to parliamentary questions, offers no safeguards at all. Given the existing track record, we may expect a very poor deal for tenants.
In Sheffield alone over the past year, there have been 869 cases of harassment, and 60 turned out to be extremely serious. If that situation is mirrored across the country, it will produce 6,000 cases of harassment. As the legal aid system is already breaking down and people cannot get approval, it is hardly surprising that tenants are asking who will be stepping in to safeguard their interests. It will be clear from my comments that it will be neither the Department of the Environment nor the Department of Health and Social Security.
In Sheffield, market rents are at levels five times higher than existing council rents, and it has been made plain tonight that there will be no guarantees or safeguards covering affordability. Therefore, it is not surprising either that the tenants all over the country who are supposed to be the benefactors of the Government's proposals are universally rejecting them. I have never before experienced such an upsurge of feeling in my constituency as I have over this Bill, approached only by that relating to the housing benefits fiasco and the poll tax. People are, for the first time in their lives, prepared to come to the House of Commons and to speak out, and new tenants' associations are being formed. I congratulate the Minister for Housing and Planning on creating a new degree of activism that we thought could not exist, and on encouraging tenants to get together and fight for their interests, and to express their views.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Whightham, wrote to me saying that it is not the local councils which own Sheffield's assets, including its council housing, but the ratepayers and tenants. She wrote:
The council are our agents, elected by us to manage and to maintain our stock. We are quite happy with the way they do their job. If we weren't, they would be out at the next municipal elections. Why can't the Government let us live in peace in our retirement? We survived the war with Germany and now our Government is making life harder and more stressful for us each day.
Those are the words of someone who has never before written a letter to her Member of Parliament but who is distressed by what is happening and who knows perfectly well that with all the difficulties and problems facing local authorities in providing adequate housing, at the end of the day those elected through the ballot box are accountable. They were elected not on abstentions but on actual, determined votes. They are people who are accountable and who can be rejected. Who will reject the landlords of the future? Who will be there not simply to prevent the most outrageous abuses but to ensure that people have real choice?
There can be only three reasons why people should want to be involved in housing—not to make money, as would appear to be the case with those who used to speak on behalf of the homeless and the dispossessed and who now run some, but not all, of the housing associations and the Institute of Housing, who set themselves up in Quality Street, and who have abandoned the principles upon which they made their professional names. There are three simple tenets of housing policy. The first is to house the homeless, the second is to house the badly housed, and the third is to ensure that investment is made in adequate housing stock for the future, giving real choice, affordability and accessibility to the people of this country.

Mr. Waldegrave: I say to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), whom I genuinely respect, that his speech was not worthy of him, because in order to drag in the Secretary of State's name by a side wind, he distorted his speech and talked about something entirely different. When I challenged him to explain how anything in these clauses or in the Bill weakens the powers of tenants over landlords who may not have carried out their legal duties, the hon. Gentleman was unable to reply. Both parties agree that the Government have accepted a whole package of measures that will strengthen tenants' rights. The case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, quite unjustifiably, was settled in the courts, and on that occasion the tenants were shown by the court not to be in the right.

Mr. Soley: The Minister does not seem to have grasped that one of the organisations concerned was a housing association. Will he take that point on board, because he is supposed to be talking about such associations? The other point that the Minister does not seem to have grasped is the importance of extending the approval area so that not just one is covered. That was discussed in Committee, day after day. Has the Minister forgotten that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member has failed to grasp that nothing we are doing will weaken the situation and that everything we are doing is strengthening it. Secondly, the approval mechanism to which he attaches himself is far weaker that the legally binding system we are establishing.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Tell that to van Hoogstraten.

Mr. Waldegrave: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman says, "Tell that to van Hoogstraten." Well, I have read in the newspapers—

Mr. Boateng: I am now standing up to say, tell that to van Hoogstraten.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is keen to get his name into Hansard from any position. I note, because my sources about van Hoogstraten are doubtless the same as those of the hon. Gentleman, being newspaper reports—I have not yet seen the television programme—that van Hoogstraten is getting out of the rented property business. He has been able to make money under the Rent Acts because of the gap between the real value of the property and the rents. The winkling out is to do with bringing those values together. I very much hope that we have seen the back of his involvement in rented accommodation in this country. He has been a creature of the Rent Acts, of rationing and control.

7 pm

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, I will not give way.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made a powerful and authentic speech in defence of what one might call pure municipalisation. He attacked not just me, but the Institute of Housing, some of those in housing associations and—this is the difference between us—those who are attempting to bring more pluralism into the social rented sector, which my right hon. Friend defined in his recent speech in Harrogate.
Quite justifiably, in terms of his kind of Socialism, the hon. Member for Brightside says that it should be all municipal[Interruption.] At any rate, he is suspicious of any greater pluralism because he attacked by name Quality street, the Institute of Housing and other organisations that are seeking greater pluralism. I am willing to accept that challenge. It is precisely because we want more pluralism in that sector that we are bringing forward the Bill with its safeguards which will guarantee those tenants rights which we, and all hon. Members, believe should be provided for so that they are secure.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 168.

Division No. 380]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Benyon, W.


Aitken, Jonathan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Allason, Rupert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Bowis, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Atkins, Robert
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Batiste, Spencer
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Sir Antony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Budgen, Nicholas





Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Chris
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irving. Charles


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Couchman, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Critchley, Julian
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Latham, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Day, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Devlin, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Maclean, David


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Eggar, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evennett, David
Mates, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Farr, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Favell, Tony
Miscampbell, Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Sir Charles


Franks, Cecil
Neale, Gerrard


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


French, Douglas
Neubert, Michael


Gardiner, George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Page, Richard


Gow, Ian
Paice, James


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Gregory, Conal
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grist, Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Ground, Patrick
Porter, David (Waveney)


Grylls, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Price, Sir David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Raffan, Keith


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hampson, Dr Keith
Redwood, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Renton, Tim


Hannam, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Riddick, Graham


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Harris, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Haselhurst, Alan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hawkins, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayes, Jerry
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hayward, Robert
Rost, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heddle, John
Ryder, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Scott, Nicholas






Shaw, David (Dover)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speller, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wilshire, David


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Mike


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Townend, John (Bridlington)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fearn, Ronald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G n)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foulkes, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Blair, Tony
George, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Graham, Thomas


Bradley, Keith
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Caborn, Richard
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Callaghan, Jim
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Henderson, Doug


Cartwright, John
Holland, Stuart


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clay, Bob
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clelland, David
Howells, Geraint


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Crowther, Stan
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, Bob
Kennedy, Charles


Cummings, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Livsey, Richard


Doran, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


McAllion, John
Reid, Dr John


McAvoy, Thomas
Richardson, Jo


McCartney, Ian
Robertson, George


Macdonald, Calum A.
Robinson, Geoffrey


McFall, John
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Short, Clare


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Straw, Jack


Morgan, Rhodri
Turner, Dennis


Morley, Elliott
Wall, Pat


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N.


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mullin, Chris
Wigley, Dafydd


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 372, in page 60, leave out line 26 and insert—
'(3) Subject to any directions under section 76 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (directions by the Secretary of State), an approval under this section—

(aa) shall not be given except to a person making an application accompanied by such fee as the Corporation, with the consent to the Secretary of State, may specify; and'.

No. 373, in page 60, line 32, at end insert—
'and

(c) may be made conditional upon the person or persons concerned entering into such undertakings as may be specified by the Corporation;
and different fees may be specified under paragraph (aa) above for different descriptions of cases.'.

No. 374, in page 60, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
'(4) Subject to any directions under section 76 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, if it appears to the Corporation appropriate to do so (whether by reason of a failure to honour an undertaking or to meet any criteria or for any other reason), the Corporation may revoke an approval given under this section by notice in writing served on the approved person; and where such a notice of revocation is served—
(a) the revocation shall be provisional until the expiry of such period, being not less than 14 days, as may be specified in the notice;
(b) if the Corporation withdraws the notice at any time during the specified period, the approval shall be treated as never having been revoked; and
(c) subject to paragraph (b) above, after the date of service of the notice, the person concerned may not take any steps in connection with a claim to exercise the right conferred by this Part;
but the service of a notice under this subsection shall not affect any transaction completed before the service of the notice.


(5) In the case of a body which has been approved under this section, which does not have a registered office (at which documents can be served) and which appears to the Corporation to have ceased to exist or not to operate, notice under subsection (4) above shall be deemed to be served on the body if it is served at the address last known to the Corporation to be the principal place of business of the body.
(6) The Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales shall each maintain a register of persons for the time being approved by it under this section, specifying the extent of the approval given in each case; and each register so maintained shall be open to inspection at the head office of the Corporation by which it is maintained at all reasonable times.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 89

APPLICATION TO EXERCISE RIGHT

Mr. Battle: I beg to move amendment No. 257, in page 61, line 38, at end insert—
`; and
(c) shall be copied to all tenants occupying dwellings that are included in the application by the applicant or by the landlord at the applicant's expense.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 112, in page 61, line 38, at end insert—
'(2)(a) An application under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless the applicant has obtained the necessary support of tenant(s) during the pre-selection process.
(b) In paragraph (a) above the pre-selection process is that process to be supervised by the Housing Corporation in which potential applicants are introduced to tenants who may be interested in having a new landlord acquire their dwellings, the Secretary of State shall make regulations regarding the matters to which the Housing Corporation shall have regard in the supervision and implementation of the pre-selection process. Such regulations shall include—
(i) details of procedures to prevent prospective applicants making approaches to tenants unless a change of landlord has been sought by tenants, whether directly or through the Housing Corporation;
(ii) the criteria with which the Housing Corporation shall select prospective applicants whom it has approved to be introduced to tenants;
(iii) the requirement that each tenant affected by a prospective application is informed of the prospective application in a language and form that can be readily understood;
(iv) the categories of information which shall be given to tenants by the prospective applicants and the existing landlord;
(v) details of arrangements to enable all tenants who would be affected by a change of landlord to take part in a ballot to express their preference regarding which prospective applicant, if any, they wish to see make an application under subsection (1) above.'.

No. 114, in page 61, line 38, at end insert—
'(2) Within seven days of the receipt by the landlord of an application made in accordance with subsection (1) the landlord shall serve a notice, in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed, on each qualifying tenant or tenant under a long tenancy who, on the date of the application, occupied a dwelling-house included in the application.
(3) For the purpose of this section, joint tenants shall be deemed to be one tenant and if one joint tenant fails to notify the landlord of his agreement to the proposed acquisition, any notifications by another joint tenant shall be deemed to be void.
(4) The applicant shall bear the landlord's reasonable costs of complying with this section.'.

No. 258, in clause 90, page 62, line 10, at end insert—
'a copy of such a notice is to be supplied to all tenants named within it; and'.

No. 157, in clause 91, page 63, line 4, leave out from `state' to end of line 6.

No. 259, in clause 91, page 63, line 6, at end insert—
'(3A) A copy of any notice issued under subsections (1) and (2) above shall be supplied to all tenants occupying dwellings which are the subject of the application.'.

Mr. Battle: The starting point for the discussion on this group of amendments is that all tenants to which applications relate should be consulted and kept informed at all stages of the takeover of their houses. We ask the Minister, yet again, whether those tenants will be given all the information, at all stages, that is known to the Housing Corporation. The proposals are defective because of the lack of information that tenants can glean; they should have access even to such limited information.
The Bill provides that, if a dispute arises between the tenant, the local authority and the prospective landlord, the costs will be paid at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Tenants should not have to bear such costs, other than in exceptional circumstances. There should be a proper pre-selection process, supervised and implemented by the Housing Corporation, and such a provision should appear in the Bill. The prescribed process under which potential applicants can tout tenants should include details of the procedures to prevent them from approaching tenants unless they have actively sought a change of landlord.
The Minister earlier referred to the whole process as a beauty contest, which is a rather bad analogy—although it may have been the best that he could think of. I do not know how he could suggest that prospective landlords would treat it as a beauty contest. Most tenants want to prevent the Bill resulting in what could be called kerb crawling by prospective landlords, who will turn up on spec, knock on doors and tout for trade. We want the Minister to include some protection against that in the Bill.
In Committee on 25 February, the Minister agreed that a satisfactory pre-selection procedure should be developed. That has not happened yet. Surely the Housing Corporation should be given a statutory duty to set out the regulations governing the pre-selection process, which must include a prohibition on prospective new landlords making direct approaches to tenants.
The Government have claimed the slogan, "Power to the people"—so how can they justify a Bill that actively denies tenants any involvement in the decision-making process? The Bill takes no account of the local knowledge and experience of tenants or of non-qualifying tenants such as the elderly and those in sheltered housing and housing that has been specially built or adapted for the disabled. Every tenant in the community has the right to have a say in the future of the area in which they live.
Underlying the Bill is the Government's deep-seated attitude towards tenants. The Secretary of State used to be a Minister at the Foreign Office. He once remarked:
Grenada is in the process of establishing the kind of society of which the British government disapproves, irrespective of whether the people of Grenada want it or not.
The Secretary of State has now come home with that. Irrespective of whether tenants want it, sales will be enforced over their heads. In effect, the Government will be implementing what would be better described as the


Housing (Sales and Marketing) Bill. Getting their hands on the property involves a difficulty because there are tenants in the way. The tenants thus become a problem, and winkling them out becomes the highest priority. Unless the Minister takes real cognisance of our amendment and incorporates it on the face of the Bill, the true aim of the Bill will become clear.
In a sense, the real aim was made clear by the Minister in December in House Builder magazine when he said:
In some cases the developer might want to act as landlord; in others he will want to sell the houses to another individual or institution—perhaps a local company … or a financial institution looking for an investment opportunity".
I believe that investment opportunities are at the heart of the Bill. It is about time that the Government put the tenants at the heart of the Bill. At present they are there as some kind of side effect—they have to be included because they are there, but the Bill has nothing to do with giving them extra rights as the Minister claims.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right that the main dispute between us on this, and on other points in this part of the Bill, is how much should be put on the face of the Bill and how much included in the administrative procedures and regulations that we propose for the Housing Corporation. Obviously, we fully support the need to involve tenants in the decision whether the application should be made and to inform them at subsequent key stages—the point covered by amendment No. 257.
We have already agreed that it should be a condition of approval that applicants agree to participate in the pre-selection process. This was discussed in Committee with the help of the hon. Gentleman. It has now been developed and was described on the previous group of amendments. It is right that the Housing Corporation should ensure that there is genuine tenant support before a formal application is made. The disagreement arises over the amount of detail that should be written into the Bill. We believe that it should he for the Housing Corporation to decide how best to assess the level of tenant support in each case, and we cannot accept that an applicant should not approach any tenant on his own initiative.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that tenants should be sent information at key points in the process. The argument is about the best way to handle that. We believe that they should be informed at the time of application. They must also be told whether there are any changes affecting them, following determination of the package offered by the applicant, and they must be told when the applicant has decided whether to proceed to the consultation procedure. Undertakings to give that information will be a condition of approval. We believe that that is how we should proceed. We discussed the matter in Committee, but I have not changed my mind on that, although I do not disagree about the importance of the flow of information. That is essential if the whole process is to operate properly. Detailed arrangements for consultation will be set out in regulations under clause 95.
Amendment No. 157 is a little different. The Secretary of State needs power to prescribe provisions for the adjudication process to ensure a fair and orderly procedure. Provision for costs is also required to ensure justice if either party precipitates avoidable action. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, we argued in Committee that costs should normally fall on whichever side they arise.
On the very important aspects of information, in particular, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, although he wants more to be specified in the Bill, we have moved as we promised in Committee. I repeat today the assurance that we are intent on achieving the same objectives as the hon. Gentleman, but by means of regulations.

Mr. Boateng: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks about information and consultation and about the guidelines on good practice that we are to be shown at some later stage and which are to be implemented by the Housing Corporation and others responsible.
Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that, where appropriate, the information and the procedures for consultation will be published in languages understood by the tenants affected? In some parts of the country, many residents in affected accommodation would not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to appreciate in that language the complicated and technical matters likely to be the subject of consultation and information. What proposals are there to ensure that Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi and other languages will be used for the purposes of consultation and the provision of information to ensure that the process is genuine and achieves the purpose For which it should be intended?

Mr. Waldegrave: I will respond briefly, although I believe that the point is covered in later amendments. I am happy to give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. In areas where there are large numbers of people from different communities—I could name 20 or 30 different communities—it would perhaps be unfair to insist that every language be covered. It will, however, be clearly laid down for the Housing Corporation that the principal languages in the area must be involved. If it were subsequently discovered that there was, say, one Japanese person living in the area, it might be difficult to insist that all documentation should be in that language as well, but clearly the principal languages must be covered. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them. In my own constituency, Greek and Polish would be relevant. I certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Battle: The Minister has said that the details will be in regulations and not in the Bill, but perhaps he will tell us his view of amendment No. 114, which seeks to provide for one vote per tenant rather than one vote per tenancy. If that amendment is not covered in the regulations, the Bill could result in divided households. If the Minister is not prepared to specify that everyone in the area should have a say, the obligation on the applicant to gain the support of all tenants in the area will not be fulfilled, and the legislation will have a divisive effect.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not seek to prolong the debate. We made it clear in Committee that there should be one vote per household. It would be impossible to manage the provisions if households were split. Each household must decide how to use its household vote.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I had not intended to intervene, but that is not what the Minister said in Committee. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and I specifically put it to him that joint tenants should each have a vote. The Minister undertook to consider the matter and accepted that it was a sensible suggestion.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) argued a slightly wider point, with which I also agree. There is a good case not only for joint tenants but for people with succession rights to be able to vote, as they are clearly affected parties. To my clear recollection, the Minister undertook to his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne—a former Housing Minister—and to me that he would consider the idea of allowing every person whose name appears on the rent book to vote. There are very sensible reasons for that. One tenant might subsequently leave and the other remain, and the interests of both are likely to be affected. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.

Mr. Waldegrave: I well recollect being pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and saying that I would consider the matter, but it is quite impracticable to pursue the course suggested. I believe that this issue is covered by a later amendment, but I make it clear now that we have considered the matter very carefully and that the procedure suggested is impossible.

Mr. Hughes: I hear what the Minister says, but that will often be an impossible requirement. If two people rent a flat, and are separated and in the process of divorce, one might wish that flat to be in the private sector, for all sorts of reasons, and the other might wish it to be in the council sector. There is no possibility of reconciling that, but they have one vote. If the Minister is trying to argue for a credible voting system he should think again most carefully. It is another example of the theory of the Bill being rendered increasingly illogical the more we consider it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 90

INFORMATION ETC. FOR APPLICANT

Mr. Battle: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 62, line 18, at end insert—
'(4) Any information which is held in the form of data protected under the Data Protection Act 1984 and which is considered personal data for the purposes of that Act shall be exempt from the requirements of this section unless the registration for Data Protection purposes allows such disclosure and all tenants of the local authority have been made aware of that fact.'
In Committee, I asked the Minister how the proposals in the Bill can be reconciled with the Data Protection Act 1984. It has been suggested that prospective landlords will be able to get information that they would not be able to get under the provisions of the Data Protection Act, as individual information is protected under that Act. Either the Data Protection Act applies to the Bill and prospective applicants are not allowed to have it, or the Data Protection Act will have to be repealed. Will the Minister explain how he can possibly reconcile the two pieces of legislation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that I can help the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), although I cannot advise the House to accept his amendment.
As the hon. Gentleman's amendment recognises, the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 are not technically relevant to disclosure of information by

landlords to applicants under clause 90. The prevention of disclosure provisions in the Act do not, by virtue of section 34(5), apply to disclosures which are required by a statutory duty such as clause 90(1) would impose. The Act, therefore, provides that it cannot be used as a technical obstruction to giving the applicant information which he validly needs to pursue his application under part IV.
Giving the applicant the information he needs is not, in our view, inconsistent with the important principle of privacy. If an applicant receiving data under clause 90 stored them in ways covered by the provisions of the Act, they would, of course, apply. Clause 90(3) also provides that the applicant is entitled to see only documents which he reasonably requires to pursue his application, and which the landlord is not under a duty not to disclose.
I accept that the reference in clause 90(3)(b) to duties of confidentiality could be confusing in relation to the Data Protection Act. The Government propose to bring forward amendments in another place to clarify the interaction between the two, but we propose at the same time to provide a duty of confidentiality on applicants, requiring them not to disclose information they receive in pursuit of an application under part IV, whether under clause 90 or otherwise, except to a person with a genuine need to know it for the purposes of the application. The district valuer and the independent teller are the obvious examples.
I hope that the new duty which we shall bring forward in another place will help the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 91

DETERMINATION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED

Mrs. Roe: I beg to move amendment No. 349, in page 62, line 48, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 124, in page 62, line 48, leave out 'two' and insert 'eight'.

No. 125, in clause 92, page 64, line 1, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.

No. 387, in clause 93, page 64, line 19, leave out
'before the end of the period mentioned in section 95 below'
and insert—
'within a period of one month following service of notice by the applicant of his intention to proceed under section 96(1) below'.

No. 130, in clause 95, page 65, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) The relevant period referred to in subsection (1) shall be a minimum of—
(a) 4 weeks in the case of up to 10 dwellings;
(b) 8 weeks in the case of more than 10 and up to 50 dwellings;
(c) 12 weeks in the case of more than 50 dwellings'.

No. 126, in clause 96, page 65, line 35, leave out 'two' and insert 'six'.

No. 127, in clause 97, page 66, line 5, at end insert—
'and as soon as is practically possible having regard to the need to draft all legal documents required.'.

Mrs. Roe: The amendment seeks to extend from two weeks to four the period within which the applicant must state whether he accepts the landlord's notice under clause 91(1). Having listened to the arguments in Committee, I concede that two weeks may have been a little brisk and that four weeks would strike the happy medium.

Mr. Boateng: An element of the Government's approach to this part of the Bill smacks of asset-stripping on the run. At every stage there is an inducement and an encouragement to the would-be applicant, the person who will get his hands on what was public property, to move quickly and to be impeded as little as possible by considerations of the public interest or the rights and concerns of existing tenants.
The Government have made one concession this evening in the form of amendment No. 349 which the Minister has just outlined. But we are bound to say that it does not go far enough. Having conceded the principle that two weeks is too short, she, and the Government, should consider, even at this late stage, the length of time in relation to a number of other matters covered by the group of amendments and should seek to ensure that at every stage there is time for consideration, objection and consultation.
At the moment, we have not a hit-and-run situation, not a smash-and-grab situation, but a stack-and-grab situation. The odds are stacked against anybody who seeks to object to public moneys being dissipated in the transfer of properties, against anyone who seeks to say to the landlord, "Hang on, wait a bit. We want to know more. We want some time to consider the notice that you have served upon us."
A classic example can be found on examination of clause 91, which provides that the landlord should have 12 weeks to get together a notice for service on the applicant, but within two weeks the applicant must respond in writing to any matter stated in the notice that he does not accept. We seek to extend that time. If it is right that the landlord should have 12 weeks, it must be right that the applicant should have sufficient time to consider his or her response to such matters, some of which are very complex. That philosophy runs through our response to what the Minister said about the clause. We invite the Minister to consider whether she is able to justify giving only two weeks to an applicant to scrutinise a notice specifying the price and to object to it.
Let us imagine what such a notice is likely to contain. The determination of a transfer price is a complex undertaking. It would be equally complex to scrutinise it and in many cases it would be necessary for an applicant to seek professional advice. In some cases, it would be necessary for that professional advice to encompass some 100 properties. Is it right that what amounts to a snap decision should be made in two weeks, when one considers the time taken in the conveyancing of one's house? I mean no criticism of the solicitors' profession, of the local authorities concerned or of the estate agents. Heaven forbid that one should criticise those august institutions.
I am glad to see that that brings a smile to the lips of the Minister. He has not been smiling much this afternoon, and one can well understand that, given the circumstances in which he finds himself. Let us hope that the Secretary of State does not wipe the smile from his face, as some Opposition Members predict he will shortly. If it has brought a smile to the Minister's lips I am glad, but will he translate that smile into action? I must say to hon. Members who were not present in Committee that we saw the Minister smile often, but he acted very rarely. In this instance, the Government have acted, but they have acted inadequately. Our modest amendment will enable them to

ensure that the public good and the rights of the individual are protected and that the clause does not run contrary to both.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Government amendment but I wish that it had gone further. I would have preferred the similar amendment with a longer time period tabled by the Labour party. Four weeks is still an unreasonably short time for the complicated exercise about which we are talking. Amendment No. 130 is also welcome. We should have written into the Bill specific time periods for consultation as required by clause 95.
I want to address my remarks to my amendment No. 387. It is in this group although it relates to clause 93. It seeks to return to the argument for a two-stage voting procedure. It is important, and I support it not just for the sake of it but to try to persuade Ministers of the logic of accepting the amendment, even if they tell me that there may be another way of drafting it.
There are circumstances in which tenants who have voted yes or who have not voted at all may want to be able to decide whether to stay with their local authority after they know definitely whether a transfer is to take place. A similar decision in opposite circumstances is already possible. If an individual tenant votes no, the autumn consultation paper on tenants' choice made it clear that such a tenant would have an option to
withdraw their objection in writing.
If a tenant who votes yes decides to stay with the council, the consequence of the phrase "tenants' choice" must be that they should be able to have the landlord that they prefer. The logic of that is that there are two stages. First, there is the decision as to whether the block or estate transfers. Secondly, if it does, tenants have to decide whether they want to go with the transfer. I will suggest two different circumstances in which people could reasonably want to have, and should be given, the chance to decide to stay with the council after they know that the freehold of their estate or block is to be transferred.
First, a tenant may find out late in the procedure circumstances and facts that influence the decision whether he or she wishes to transfer. It is easy to think of examples of that. For example, someone may vote for a transfer and then find out that everybody else on his or her floor or in his or her row will be staying with the council. They may regret their decision to vote for a new landlord because they would stick out like a sore thumb. They might decide that it would be better if their floor or row remained with the old landlord. The circumstances after the vote would determine their preference.
I would be interested to know from the Minister why they should not be able to exercise their preference. Under present arrangements, tenants in such circumstances cannot choose to stay with the council that reflects the Government's aim of de-municipalisation. It is a way of achieving the maximum transfer out of the council housing sector. Tenants in similar but opposite circumstances in which a few tenants find that they are the only people on a block or on an estate to vote against a transfer and decide that they want to join their neighbours in transferring will be able to do so.
The second circumstance is one in which the two-stage voting procedure, which our amendment proposes, is not only desirable in the interests of maximum tenants' choice but is necessary. It is where there is to be a secret ballot. It is an important point, and I should be fascinated to hear


the Minister's response. Does the Minister accept—this is a crucial question—that the system as proposed does not allow a secret ballot in any circumstances? If there is a secret ballot, people vote anonymously and nobody knows who casts which vote for which result. Under the Bill, the votes cannot be secret because individual decisions are made as to who transfers and who does not, as well as a collective decision about the future of the block. There cannot be a secret ballot because the result of those voting yes is then notified to everybody on the estate or block in question.
7.45 pm
If a secret ballot were to take place under what is called tenants' choice, it would inevitably have to be followed by a separate procedure under which tenants would make known their effective decision about the transfer or stay with the council landlord. When a decision about the transfer of an estate or block is made, there should always be a secret ballot. That is important so that adverse or pecuniary pressure is not applied. The necessary consequence of a secret ballot is a two-stage voting procedure. I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is a fundamental defect on the procedure because tenants cannot vote on a proposed landlord in secret. We must have an amendment to allow secret ballots to take place.
Another interesting implication of the present arrangement whereby tenants can make a second stage decision to transfer but not to stay with the council must be pointed out. The rent terms offered by the council may be different depending on whether the council continues to own the block or, following a transfer to a non-council landlord, rents it from that new landlord and sub-lets to the tenants. A council may charge a rent of £20 a week to its tenants and an applicant may offer tenants a rent of £30 a week plus substantial improvements to the estate. We can imagine for simplicity that tenants have a straightforward choice between higher rents and improvements with the new landlords or lower rents and no improvements with the council landlord.
If a transfer took place, the council would, for those flats where tenants wish to remain with the council, have to pay the new landlord the higher rents. In paragraph 36, the document on tenants' choice makes it clear that
In general terms, it is proposed that the rent and service charge payable by a landlord under a leaseback arrangement should be neither more or less than the rent and service charge payable by a tenant of a similar property who has chosen to transfer to the applicant.
For that reason the council may make its policy for future rents dependent on its costs. If transfer takes place, council rents may, indeed probably will, be higher than if the transfer does not take place. That will happen because the council will be charged more and, as the Minister said, the only option is for the council to subsidise the difference. Councils will not have the money to do that, and rents will go up. That is a fact of municipal life. The council will not be able to finance an ongoing deficit to keep its rents down when it is being charged more.
For that reason, tenants who vote to stay with the council may decide to transfer, which they will be able to do. The rent differential will no longer pertain because the council will have to charge higher rents as well. Therefore, tenants may want to make a second choice. The essential point about amendment No. 387 is that somebody's vote

for what should happen to a block or estate might be different from what that person would prefer for himself or herself. Each tenant must make two separate decisions. I hope that the Minister will accept that this issue needs to be reconsidered. At present, the Bill does not permit the two decisions to be taken separately. Clause 93(2) identifies the vote as one and the same thing—the public decision about whether to transfer.
Confusion clearly exists in Government. The Secretary of State nearly slipped up in an interview with Municipal Journal on 10 June 1988. The interview says:
The Environment Secretary says: 'There are two separate questions. First is who shall be the block landlord and it is to that which the voting system applies … The second point is that the legislation says each individual tenant has the right to decide who is his own landlord. The second stage is that such a tenant can say I will stay with the local authority in which case he takes a local authority tenancy and the local authority takes the tenancy of the landlord. Or he can say I'm quite happy to go with the new landlord and he gets a direct tenancy with the new landlord.' Mr. Ridley denies that is a new fallback stage.
Officials had to come to the Secretary of State's rescue. The interview continues:
Department of the Environment officials later clarified this point. There is one vote, they said, with two implications. The sum total is where the block goes, individual decisions are where the tenancies go. As for whether there will be a demand for new landlords Mr. Ridley exclaims 'What harm is there in giving them a choice.'
It is not only a one-way choice but a false choice made without knowledge of the facts. Further, it will not be a secret choice. The ballot concerns not only the rigged vote, to which we shall turn in a moment—

Mr. Boateng: The sooner the better.

Mr. Hughes: It is important to show the inadequacies of the voting system.

Mr. Spearing: Letters system.

Mr. Hughes: That is true. To call it a voting system is cloaking it with an authenticity that it clearly will not have.
The application procedure as a whole will take six months or more. The proposal in the amendment would add, at most, an extra four weeks. Tenants certainly would not object to it, because it would cater for their interests and maximise their choice. I hope that the Government will think again about this additional iniquity in a ridiculous voting system.

Mrs. Roe: Tenants' choice procedures are potentially time-consuming, and we do not want to extend them further unless absolutely necessary.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) mentioned asset-stripping. I remind him of the stringent approval criteria under the Housing Corporation amendments that we discussed earlier, and of the Secretary of State's power to control, by his consent under clause 98, any disposals of property transferred under this part of the Bill.

Mr. Boateng: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roe: I shall not give way, because we have much to do.
As to amendment No. 125, once the scope of the application is agreed, the landlord sets his proposed price. I do not understand why an applicant would need more


than two weeks to dispute that price. He will have had time to make an assessment of the price, so he should be able to react more quickly.
Amendment No. 126 would allow the landlord six weeks to dispute a final notice of intention to proceed. I cannot see the need for this amendment. What will the landlord be disputing? As we are all agreed on the need for an independent teller, such as the electoral reform society, the conduct of the ballot should be beyond question.
As to the principle of amendment No. 130, I assure hon. Members that we have no intention of prescribing unrealistically short periods for consultation. I do not think that a period for consultation and a ballot should be less than 28 days. We have agreed to consult expert and interested bodies such as the Electoral Reform Society about this matter, which will help us to arrive at a sensible and fair time limit.
As to amendment No. 127, I am advised that there is no need to say that the completion of the transaction can be accomplished only subject to the necessary legal requirements being met, including the drafting of relevant papers. Time limits should not be set to accommodate the slowest performer. On the contrary, we wish to encourage the swift and businesslike conclusion of each application. I remind hon. Members that, under clause 101, it is open to the parties to extend the time limit by agreement. I ask hon. Members not to press the rest of the amendments.
Amendment No. 387 addresses the separate issue of how many times tenants should decide the future of their tenancies. If the overall ballot is such that the applicant decides to proceed and issues notice to that effect, amendment No. 387 would allow the tenant a further month to change his vote. Those who had voted yes could change their minds, thus throwing the applicant's calculations into a meaningless muddle. The applicant must be in a position, before he decides whether to proceed, to know which tenants intend to remain with the council. We therefore cannot agree to prolong and disrupt the consultation process in that way.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the tenant should not have to decide whether to go or stay until his neighbours had decided. In theory, that process could go on for ever. There comes a time when tenants must choose, not on the basis of what their neighbours are doing but on what the applicant offers on consultation.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the issue of the secret ballot. It is a feature of the consultation procedure that each tenant can decide the future of his or her tenancy. As the hon. Gentleman said, there cannot be an anonymous ballot.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roe: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will be patient and allow me to finish the points that I am making.
Any anonymous ballot is not the same as a secret ballot. The independent teller will collect the votes and will pass on to the applicant only the information that he needs to pursue his application. That gives the appropriate protection of the tenant's private interests.
Tenants who decide to stay will not pay private sector rents; the existing landlord pays what the transferring tenants have freely agreed to pay. The rent to be paid for

existing tenancies is a matter for the tenant and the landlord to agree, and full-cost recovery is not a usual feature of individual council rents.

Mr. McCartney: This is a historic moment; it has taken four months for the Minister to give way to me.
In Committee, I asked about the voting procedure and individual tenants. Was the hon. Lady sneaking out a concession when she mentioned each tenant? In Committee, when we asked what would happen if each tenant had the right to vote, the Minister was unclear. Is the Minister clarifying the position and saying that in joint tenancies each tenant will have the right to vote or will tenants be nominated? If so, which tenant will have the vote?

Mrs. Roe: This matter has been covered in debate. It has been made clear that it is one vote per household.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92

DETERMINATION OF PURCHASE PRICE

8 pm

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move amendment No. 350, in page 63 line 19, after 'acquired', insert—
`or, as the case may be, the disposal cost which, disregarding section 93(3) below, is attributable to the property to be acquired by virtue of subsection (2A) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 351 to 360.

Mr. Waldegrave: The amendments are simpler than they look. The principle, which we have already debated, concerns dowries. With our present select band, although rather fewer than in Committee, it is right that we should look at such complicated amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) is here in case we get muddled. He may be able to produce some visual aids if we get into difficulties.
Amendment No. 350 provides for dowries. We foreshadowed this in our October explanatory paper. We said that market value subject to tenancy could give rise to negative valuations, and we debated the principle earlier on tenants' choice. That could arise when the landlord had failed to fulfil his contractual repairing obligations. Once a sum is deducted from a valuation to allow for a backlog of landlord's repairs, the value of the property could well be less than nothing. In those circumstances, it would be open to a tenant to take the present landlord—the council—to court and insist that the repairs were made. This provision merely transfers an obligation that already exists.
Hon. Members have argued against dowries but, as long as we ensure that the subsidy regime takes account of them, it is logical that dowries—which do not invent any new obligations or costs for local authorities that do not exist already but simply capitalise them—should be available. The amendments bring that about.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 351, in page 63, leave out line 22.

No. 352, in page 63, line 23, leave out 'attributable to the houses' and insert


'the amount attributable to houses as defined in section 93(4) (b) below'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 63, line 25, after second 'be', insert
'the greater of the amount of any debt attributable to its construction, acquisition or renovation which is outstanding on the relevant date and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 128, in page 63, line 25, leave out 'relevant date' and insert—
'date of valuation subject of a revision of such valuation if completion is delayed by more than twelve weeks and such delay is not the result of a failure on the landlord's part to meet deadlines prescribed in this Part of the Act'.

No. 134, in page 63, line 27, leave out 'on the following assumptions' and insert—
'with the addition of a sum equal to the value of any arrears of rent owing by the tenant of that property. The following assumptions will apply to the assessment of open market value'.

No. 137, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
'; and

(f) that the price payable must not be less than the debt outstanding on the dwelling at that time.'.

No. 138, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
'; and

(f) that the price will be a positive value payable to the vendor.'.

No. 261, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
'provided that the price shall not be less that the market value of the property with vacant possession reduced by an amount equating to the national average discount under Part V of the Housing Act 1985 as prescribed from time to time'.

No. 158, in page 64, line 5, leave out from `valuer' to end of line 6 and insert—
'and there shall be an appeal to Tribunal set up for this purpose; and any costs shall be shared between the parties equally'.

No. 394, in page 64, line 6, at end insert—
'(6) If, following an acquisition made under this Part at a purchase price determined under this section, a local authority has outstanding debt attributable to construction, acquisition or renovation of any property subject to the acquisition made under this Part, the Secretary of State shall take responsibility for servicing and paying the debt.'

Mr. Hughes: It is a strange circumstance that four and a half days into the Report stage we are debating amendment No. 1, but that is the way of the world. It is debated with amendment No. 394, in my name, and with other no doubt excellent ideas put forward by other hon. Members, which, I must be honest, I have not considered as carefully.
The amendment is about transfer price. The Minister touched on this matter in his brief remarks in the debate on amendment No. 350. The proposal is that local authorities should not be left with outstanding loan debt on properties in which they no longer have an interest. If the tenanted market value is less than the outstanding loan debt, and the local authority continues to have responsibility for the debt and does not receive resources to cover it, the cost to the local council of servicing and paying off the remaining debt will have to be borne—this is the crucial point—by the remaining tenants of the council and-or by the ratepayers. From what we understand will be in next year's housing Bill—when debts arising out of housing matters will not be allowed to be transferred across to the general rate account—those debts will have to be borne by the remaining tenants.
That raises the bizarre and grossly inequitable prospect of local authorities that have had a large proportion of their stock bought by new landlords—with no say by the local authority; it has no power to stop that—having to impose the remaining debt burden on an ever-decreasing number of tenants. It raises the bizarre consequence that local authorities that dispose of all their stock to a new landlord for a price less than the outstanding loan debt would have to pay off that debt without any resources.
That must be the implication of the scheme as proposed. Ministers are forced to agree, although they may not politically want to concede it, that the logic lies with the amendment, which says that the purchase price cannot be lower than the outstanding debt.
Amendment No. 394 proposes an alternative way forward. There is some evidence that the Government are aware of the problem raised by it and plan to provide additional subsidy to local authorities that are left with outstanding loan debt on property that they no longer own. In the general election campaign last year, the Secretary of State made it clear, according to the "Housing Association Weekly" of 5 June 1987—the week before the general election—that
Any local authority which loses money on a transfer will be able to claim extra RSG to cover the loss of interest on debt.
In Committee, in the debates on housing action trusts, the Minister of State said that revenue expenditure to cover outstanding loan debt charges should be covered by subsidy arrangements. The press briefing which the Minister gave last week and which was widely reported in the specialist press referred to that problem, and included this quotation from the Minister:
The Government won't write off debt, but it will take account of its effects. The subsidy system will have to direct resources to those who have a new burden.
In Committee—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hughes: Do not tempt me. The Principality—in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey)—is coming to the rescue, hot-foot from Korea, as I understand it.
In Committee, referring to housing action trusts, the Minister said that if there were a negative sale value such that the capital payment had to be made by the council to the new landlord when the council sold property to him, that payment, or dowry, would be financed through the housing investment programme. There is plenty of evidence that the Government have already thought that there will have to be additional subsidy.
Amendment No. 394 requires the Secretary of State directly to take responsibility for servicing and paying any outstanding loan debt. It is important that some requirement be written into the Bill to guarantee local authorities that they will not face a massive debt and have no money to pay it. They might be able to call on only a small number of residential tenants. We need to hear exactly what the Government will do about outstanding loan debt. It is not a theoretical problem.
The Government must tell local councils what happens if they sell housing stock or have it forced out of their hands, but are left with a debt to pay. The Government must accept that, even if they do not want high prices putting off new landlords, the ratepayers or the tenants who remain with the council—the only people left—should not effectively have to subsidise new landlords


because of a purchase price determined by central Government on the basis of ensuring that it is low enough to benefit the new landlords. This is an important point. Ratepayers and tenants remaining with the council will pay to subsidise the landlords who buy under this so-called tenants' choice.
The Government have stated that the principal subsidy for new landlords lies in the purchase price. They must make sure that it is a subsidy, but one from Government and not one that must be paid by tenants who remain with the council.
A similar amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know. He was here earlier, but he has disappeared again.

Mr. Winnick: He is looking after his tenants.

Mr. Hughes: He is looking after his tenants.
The hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment at the request of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, which is worried about this issue. In response to the "Tenants' Choice" document, the ADC said:
We are concerned that in some circumstances property may have to be sold at a price which is lower than the outstanding loan debt. Authorities which are still in receipt of housing subsidy will be somewhat cushioned from this loss. However other councils will be left with the residual debt in the housing revenue account.
The ADC naively asked:
Will the Government he making financial assistance available to these local councils in order to service the debt?
We need to be assured that ratepayers and remaining council tenants will not have to subsidise the new takeover landlords. If the Government want the scheme, they must make money available to the councils to pay for it. The Government must not be allowed to get off the hook by saying that this is a theoretical problem. It is a very real problem that will cost most councils in England and Wales millions of pounds.

Mr. Waldegrave: I despair of my powers of persuasion. I have tried to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) so many times out of his views, but I have not succeeded. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that all sorts of people try to persuade him out of his views, which I have no doubt is true, but so far they have all failed.
The point is that nothing will change. The valuation will reflect the reality in the area concerned. If a local authority has property that is costing it more than it derives in rent, it has a negative value. I refer to the experience of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I know that his local authority is in the unfortunate position of having a large amount of housing that has a very large amount of outstanding debt attached to it and that, in terms of market valuations, is not worth very much. Practically every local authority has similar properties. If local authorities were to receive something that was based not on a property's valuation but on the historic cost, that would dramatically change the position. The Government's position will not change the authority's position. We are capitalising the flows, whether they be negative or positive.

Ms. Primarolo: To give the Minister's powers of persuasion yet another chance to correct our views, I mentioned earlier that Bristol city council asked the

Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy to calculate the valuation price of the transfer of a single unit in Bristol to a private landlord. Its valuation was £3,000. I do not say that the Minister is being dishonest, but I think that he is misleading us about the criteria on which such a valuation is made. Apparently the valuation is to be made by saying that that unit has a depreciation value. If all houses were valued on that basis, the price of houses would be lower, instead of which there is growing concern about house prices. Property Investment Company. which is a subsidiary of TSB, has been set up to advise on the transfer of council houses to private landlords under the scheme. It says that the valuation of the housing would have to be extremely low to attract investors' interest. That flies in the face of what the Minister has said.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady knows that the ultimate valuation, in case of dispute, would come from the district valuer. I do not detect Bristol city council objecting to the acceptance of district valuer prices in other circumstances. I do not therefore see why the council should object to district valuer prices in this case.
The argument about dowries has been advanced several times today. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had to go back to the general election campaign to detect that we then said that there would be subsidy consequences. He did not need to go back as far as that. In a previous debate today, I said that there would be subsidy consequences and that the Government must take them into account.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), the managing director of Property Investment Company is quoted in the Financial Times of 20 June as saying:
Private investors would not finance the purchase of council housing estates by housing associations unless the Government was prepared to write off local authority debts on council homes.
What does the Minister have to say in reply?

Mr. Waldegrave: The gentleman in question can say what he likes. We say that it would be wrong if local authorities did not get the proper value for their properties, which is tenanted market value. In some cases that will mean that councils will do very much better out of it than if they received outstanding loan debt. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants councils to win in either case. It is far simpler to have a proper valuation. It is not a transfer within the public sector, and the best way to deal with it is by means of tenanted market value. On that basis, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's answer was no more convincing than the one that he gave in Committee. It is not believed by many of the advisers, and I quoted somebody who is regarded as authoritative and independent. The Minister did not answer some of the key questions that were put to him about who would pick up the tab. The answer is that the only people who are left to pick up the tab are the ratepayers and remaining council tenants. They will have to foot the bill and subsidise the new landlord. They will have to pay for the Government's policies. That is why I tabled the amendment and why I do not intend to withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say, Aye. To the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the House. The Noes have it.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to cause mischief, but this is the second time that the Opposition have been cheated out of an amendment—once in Committee and again tonight. A vote was taken, and you stated the result absolutely clearly. There should be no attempt to alter the decision. It should be accepted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There was a misunderstanding by the Chair, just as there can be a misunderstanding by any hon. Member. The sensible way out of the difficulty would be for the Chair to put the Question again.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would at least be generous of the Government to concede that on amendment No. 1, of all amendments, they were happy to accept your initial ruling.
I ask the Minister to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House had better put the matter right beyond doubt. The Chair will put the question again. The Question is, That the amendment be made——

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say, Aye. To the contrary, No. I think that the Noes have it. The Noes have it.
I understand that amendments Nos. 140, 141 and 159 are not to be moved.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to cause further problems, but I want this matter clarified. It is important for those hon. Members who have spent literally hundreds of hours on the Bill. It seems that when a vote is taken and then retaken it is just to give credence to an arrangement about the outcome of votes. That is not how I, as a Back Bencher, see the matter. A vote was clearly taken, and I find the outcome extremely difficult to understand. If that is to be the principle that governs voting, I think that each time the Opposition lose a vote we should ask for it to be retaken.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is within the discretion of the Chair. If there is doubt about the outcome of the Question that has been put to the House, it is right that the Chair should put the Question again to remove any doubt.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the time that the vote was taken, I counted 10 hon. Members on this side voting and nine hon. Members on the other side voting. I know that we are talking about a funny voting system, but it seems to me that 10 over nine is a majority for the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had said that he wished to press the matter to a Division, that would have clarified matters. I did not get that impression from the hon. Gentleman. I heard a distinct cry of "No" and I said that the Noes had it. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman challenge the Chair's ruling. These points of order are delaying the House.

Amendments made: No. 353, in page 63, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) Subject to section 93(3) below, there is a disposal cost attributable to the property to be acquired if, having regard to the expense likely to be incurred in carrying out the works referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) above, the property to which the acquisition relates would not realise any price in the circumstances specified in that subsection; and that disposal cost is the amount by which the expense likely to be so incurred exceeds what would be determined under that subsection as the price if those works had already been carried out.'

No. 354, in page 63, line 42, after 'price', insert—
`or, as the case may be, disposal cost'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 93

DETERMINATION OF PURCHASE PRICE

No. 355, in page 64, line 23, leave out from 'acquisition' to 'that' in line 25 and insert—
'(a) there shall be determined the sum (in this subsection referred to as "the sum referable to excluded houses") which represents'.

No. 356, in page 64, line 28, at end insert—
'and

(b) if the amount attributable to house is a price, the sum referable to excluded houses shall be applied as a deduction from any price payable for the property to be aquired, as determined under section 92 above, and as an increase in any disposal cost attributable to that property; and
(c) if the amount attributable to houses is a disposal cost, the sum referable to excluded houses shall be applied as an increase in any price payable for the property to be acquired, as determined under section 92 above, and as a deduction from any disposal cost attributable to that property.'.

No. 357 in page 64, line 29, after 'In', insert 'section
92(1)(ii) and'.

No. 358, in page 64, line 33, after 'price', insert—
'or, as the case may be, disposal cost'.

No. 359, in page 64, line 34, leave out from 'the' to end of line 35 and insert—
'price or disposal cost which, under subsection (2) or subsection (2A) of section 92 above, would be attributable for, or attributable to, the property to which the acquisition relates if there were excluded from that property all property other than dwelling-houses which are houses.'. —[Mr. Waldegrave,]

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The difficulties for the House are not being caused by hon. Members but by the complexities of the Bill and the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that it is not unusual for the House and the Chair to be confused about complex matters.

Clause 95

CONSULTATIONS BY APPLICANT

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment 170, in page 65, line 10, at end insert 'subject to subsection (3) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 175, in page 65, line 10, at end insert—
`For the purposes of this section, tenant(s) shall include——

(i) sole tenants,
(ii) all joint tenants,
(iii) the spouse of any tenant as defined in (i) and (ii) if residing with the tenants,


(iv) any other person residing with the tenant(s) who on the relevant date have a right to succeed to the tenancy in accordance with sections 87 and 89 of the Housing Act 1985'.

No. 171, in page 65, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) The applicant will cause to permit such consultation to be carried out by an independent person agreed by the landlord, or such independent persons as may be prescribed'.

No. 302, in page 65, line 13, at end insert—
'(3) The provisions governing the consultation shall include the appointment of an independent teller to supervise the conduct of the consultation.
(4) If the independent teller, appointed under the provisions of subsection (3) above, has reason to believe that any financial consideration or other improper material inducement has been or will be offered or made by the applicant to any qualifying tenant, to influence that tenant not to give notice under section 93(2) above, he shall be empowered to declare the consultation null and void.'.

No. 384, in clause 96, page 65, line 16, at end insert—
(1A) This subsection applies to any qualifying tenant whose tenancy commenced before the relevant date and who, before the end of the period mentioned in section 95 above, has given notice in such manner as may be prescribed of his wish to become a tenant of the applicant.'.

No. 173, in page 65, line 18, leave out from 'above' to end of line 21 and insert—
'where—

(a) in the case of flats fewer than 66 per cent. of those eligible to vote support the transfer; or
(b) in the case of houses fewer than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote support the transfer,
a secret ballot to be conducted by the Electoral Registration Officer for the area, or such other person who may be agreed by the applicant or landlord'.

No. 174, in page 65, line 18, leave out from 'above' to end of line 21 and insert—
'(a) where—

(i) in the case of flats fewer than 66 per cent. of those eligible to vote have supported the transfer on principle; or
(ii) in the case of houses fewer than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote support the transfer in principle, and
(b) unless it is accompanied by the written consent from all those households who wish to participate in the transfer, such consent to be in the form as shall be prescribed'.

No. 385, in page 65, line 18, leave out 'if' and insert 'unless'.

No. 386, in page 65, line 19, leave out '93(2)' and insert `96(1A)'.

No. 303, in page 65, line 21, at end insert—
', or if the independent teller appointed under the provisions of section 95(3) above has declared the consultation null and void.'.

No. 172, in page 65, line 21, at end insert—
'(3) A ballot under this section shall be conducted by the approval body referred to in section 87 above and shall be so conducted by it as to secure that—

(a) so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to the approval body's obligations in subsection (5) below, all those entitled to vote shall have an opportunity of voting and of doing so in secret; and
(b) the votes given in the ballot are fairly and accurately counted.
(4) The method of voting in the ballot must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting. The voting paper must inform the person voting of the likely consequences of the acquisition and shall contain such other information as may be prescribed.
(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the approval body shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that—

(a) All persons entitled to vote in the ballot, the applicant and the landlord are notified of the number of—


(i) votes cast in the ballot;
(ii) individuals voting in favour of the acquisition proceeding;
(iii) individuals voting against the acquisition proceeding;
(iv) spoiled ballot papers;
(b) where the condition referred to in subsection (2) above has been satisfied, that the applicant and the landlord are informed of the name and address of every individual who has voted against the acquisition proceeding.
(6) The applicant shall bear the approval body's reasonable costs and expenses in conducting the ballot and in complying with its obligations in subsection (5) above'.

No. 177, in page 65, line 34, at end insert—
`; and

(f) the consent in writing of tenants to whom section 95 above applies'.

We may also discuss new clause 43—Need for positive tenant's choice before change of Landlord ( Part IV)—
`(1) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in this Part of this Act shall mean that the landlord of a tenant shall change unless the tenant has notified the independent teller that he wishes to become a tenant of the applicant.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the independent teller shall he a person approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Soley: I can understand the frustration of the House because some hon. Members felt that they had given more in Committee than they had received. Much of the frustration arises from the so-called voting system that we are about to discuss. That is the key area and it has been considerably debated in Committee. Fortunately, we seem to have been able to draw the matter to the attention of the media. It is by far the most iniquitous part of the Bill in terms of the misuse of the English language. The Government presented the matter as if it were about tenants' choice, but it is about "pick-a-tenant" because a landlord can choose which properties he wants to take over.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, this is not a voting system but one carried out by letters. Our amendments seek to make clear that a voting system is necessary. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and other hon. Members will be pleased to see from an examination of the full group of amendments that they cover a number of areas about which we have already spoken. Those areas have been causing some anxiety, not the least important being that concerning the right of a spouse to vote whether or not it is a joint tenancy, a sole tenancy, or involves the spouse of any tenant. The most important amendments in the group are amendments Nos. 172 and 174, and if necessary we shall push them to a vote. Those amendments would create a genuine voting system.
In an attempt to be clever, the Minister said that the leader of the Labour party approved the principles of the system contained in the Bill, but the Minister misread the report in The Guardian. My right hon. Friend's speech was a very good one. I know that, because I checked it. It reiterates what I have been saying since the Bill first appeared, that we have no objection to tenants being able to change their landlord. However, it must also apply in the private sector for non-resident landlords, and it must be done in a proper way, with a proper voting system. It must be done in a way that makes sure that proper rights are safeguarded and that the tenants have an absolute veto. That is crucial.
It is also necessary, as has been done successfully by Labour councils in Glasgow and Sheffield, that the change be made in co-operation with a good alternative landlord. The Minister will know that, where it has been done successfully by Labour local authorities, it has been carried out in conjunction with co-operatives and housing associations. We have no objection to that. We have every objection to the introduction by the Government of a system that basically allows a private developer approved by the Government to make a bid for property. Having made that bid, he can make the local authority offer all the information that he needs about the number of tenants, the cost of servicing the estate and a whole range of other matters. That will give the developer an idea of whether it is worth taking over the properties.
The so-called voting system angers council tenants more than any other part of the Bill. I do not blame them, because the dead are counted as having voted in favour of a transfer. If a person dies at the time a bid is made for an estate, he is counted as having voted in favour of a transfer. By any standards that is wicked, but it goes further than that, because all empty properties are also counted as yes votes. That is an incredible system. In order to stop a sale going through, there would have to be a majority against it. I shall give a simple example. If 50 per cent. of the people vote no, 25 per cent. vote in favour of a takeover and 25 per cent. do not vote at all, the takeover will go ahead. In an extreme example, where no one votes in favour of the takeover, it will go ahead if a majority does not vote against it.

Mr. Tony Banks: That could happen.

Mr. Soley: As my hon. Friend says, that could happen. This system is a disgrace to democracy and its description is a gross misuse of the English language. I am all for the flexibility of the English language, but this cannot be called a voting system. How does the Minister justify it? He justifies it by an incredible statement. He says that it is quite all right because people who want to stay with the local authority can do so. But then we read in the newspapers that the rent will be set by the new landlord. That wipes the smile off the face of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies).
The Minister says that a local authority can decide whether to subsidise a tenant and make up the difference. We know that umpteen service charges can be imposed on tenants by a new landlord. That has happened in Thamesmead. There can be service charges for the caretaker, for the maintenance of the estate and for landscaping. No fewer than 13 different surcharges can be levied. The Minister says that these matters will not worry the tenants, but they will, because it is their money that is being given away. The Government have their hands in the pockets of the tenants and are trying to get money out to give to some other organisation that has taken over those tenants.
This is a grossly unreasonable attempt to fool tenants, but it has gone badly wrong. That is one of the reasons—we shall come to it later—for the Government now looking with such interest at new clause 47. They have twigged that, even with this incredibly distorted voting system, the vast majority of council tenants will not be fooled and will vote against. In Peterborough, where a

massive 95 per cent. voted to stay with the local authority, the Government stepped in and said that, as with other new towns, they would try to find a way of transferring the properties without a vote and will have a vote in two years. That is the latest trick. The Government are desperate to get local authorities out of the provision of housing. The tenants do not want that, yet the Bill is supposed to be all about tenants' choice. If tenants vote to stay with a local authority, why should they not be allowed to do so? That is the issue.
In these amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 172 and 174, we are laying down what the voting procedures should be. There must be a proper ballot, with an approved body—such as the Electoral Reform Society —to oversee it. There must be proper checks on the way in which voting is carried out. The Government felt it necessary to impose the toughest of legislation on the trade unions, but all of a sudden, someone can have their home transferred over his head, and although he might object, nothing can be done about it and he simply has to pay the new rent set by the new landlord, plus all the service charges and the rest, or move out of the home. That is one of the most appalling proposals to be before the House, particularly because it is dressed up by misuse of the English language.
8.30 pm
The matter goes further. We want an answer from the Minister on this. Last Thursday, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked a question of the Prime Minister. She replied:
I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants' co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations.
There was an interruption, and the Prime Minister went on to say:
In that case, may I have another look at it? I think in fact that we have arranged for a block to be transferred only with a majority of those voting and for those who do not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership."—[Official Report, 23 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1257.]
That is not the case. The Prime Minister is wrong about the Bill as drafted. Therefore, will the Minister alter the Bill to fit what the Prime Minister thought was being done? Alternatively, has he told the Prime Minister that she was wrong last Thursday when she said that the decision was taken by a "majority of those voting"? He could change the Bill along the lines of our amendments and bring it into line with what the Prime Minister thought it was doing. If we are in favour of majority voting, which we think is the basic necessity, we ought to move in that direction.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is explaining the matter clearly, but is it not even more serious? Would it not be proper for the Prime Minister tomorrow to correct what she said if we are right, or for the Secretary of State, who is, after all, a member of the Cabinet and should have informed her, to say that he will incorporate that provision in the Bill? Should not one of them be here before we reach the vote to tell us what they are going to do?

Mr. Soley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the Prime Minister cannot be in the House tomorrow, but we intend to pursue this matter. We want to know whether the Minister will amend this, so that the decision is taken by a majority vote. In Committee, we had long debates about this extremely important matter. I


appreciate that we have major time problems today, but this is so important that we expect the Minister to tell us——

Mr. Spearing: No, the Secretary of State.

Mr. Soley: Well, we expect the Secretary of State to tell us—that the Prime Minister was right and he will change the Bill accordingly, or she is not right, and he will go back and tell the Prime Minister that she was wrong. We want an answer, and we want it now.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I remember both my question and the Prime Minister's answer well. I was anticipating that we might debate this part of the Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livesey) and I tabled three amendments, Nos. 384, 385 and 386 and new clause 42 as part of the debate. They simply say that there can be no transfer unless and until the tenants say that they want a transfer. That is simple, straightforward and democratic and the basis of the new clause is the declaratory nature of the new clause that the Government moved in part I. If tenants' choice means what it says, it surely follows that the principle declared in new clause 42 should be in the Bill and that no tenant should become a tenant of a different landlord unless the tenant has chosen to so.
I remind the Minister that in this respect the English and Welsh Bill differs from the Scottish Bill. The principle of majority voting and support is enshrined in the Scottish Bill. In Committee, the Minister gave some reasons for the differences in legislation, saying that it depended on the legal systems and legal terminology. It is true that that difference exists, but that is not a reason why the principle should be different and people in England and Wales have a system that says that there need not be a majority in favour before there is a transfer of property. Why, if Scottish council tenants can have a fair voting system, cannot English and Welsh council tenants? Presumably, the reason is that the Government are not in favour of tenants' choice, but they are in favour of removing council property from council ownership.
Last Thursday I mentioned to the Prime Minister a letter written on her headed notepaper on 9 June last year, two days before the last general election, in reply to Mr. St. John of Thessaly road, the Patmore estate, London SW8. It says:
Dear Mr. St. John, Mrs. Thatcher has asked me to thank you for your recent letter on council tenancies and to reply.
The substantive point is:
You really do mistake our intentions".
It goes on to state clearly:
if the majority agree their tenancies can be transferred to approved institutions, housing associations and building societies those council tenants who wish to remain with the council will be able to do so, so there is no need for the anxieties you mention.
It was signed, "Reginald Eyre". He was a former hon. Member and a Minister. When I asked the Prime Minister last Thursday to explain, she twice said this, among other telling points:
I thought that we had arranged that it was a majority of those voting—either for tenants' co-operatives or for a possible transfer to housing associations.
Then, when it was made clear that that was not what was in the Bill, she said:
In that case, may I have another look at it? I think in fact that we have arranged for a block to be transferred"—

I shall come back to the block issue, which is another one which has been misunderstood—
only with a majority of those voting and for those who do. not wish to be transferred to remain under existing ownership"—[Official Report, 23 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 1257.]
That was not surprising, as the Prime Minister was confirming what she had written to a voter just before the last election. I wrote to her last week and the letter was delivered to Downing street on Friday. I have not yet had a reply, unless one has arrived in my office since the debate began. Quite clearly, as of Thursday, the Prime Minister believed that there was a majority voting system. I believe that she, the Secretary of State and the Minister cannot justify going back on an express commitment made before the general election that it required a majority to be in favour before property was transferred.
In Committee, the Minister revealed that the Government's primary purpose was the ideological anti-public sector, pro-private sector purpose of de-municipalising housing. The Minister said:
at this stage the primary purpose is to introduce greater plurality into the near monopoly holders, the municipal sector."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25 February 1988; c. 1166.]
Perhaps he said that by accident, but I do not think that that was the case. That was evidence of the Government's real motivation.
Giving tenants what the Government call a choice is only a mechanism for achieving what they want. It is not their primary purpose. If it were their primary purpose to give tenants choice, we would still have the Bill, but with very different clauses. Above all, there would be majority voting in favour in a secret ballot before council property was transferred. As the Government's primary purpose is not tenants' choice but taking property from the council sector, they have to introduce a mechanism which distorts that voting system.
The housing under-secretary of the ADC, Mr. Paul Johnson, has argued adamantly against the voting system in the Bill. On 22 April, he wrote in the Municipal Journal:
However, on the crucial issue of a majority vote the Government has not given way. The voting system thus reflects the primary purpose of the Government of `introducing greater plurality into the near monopoly holders, the municipal sector' … Yet is it really defensible to transfer the apathetic, the absent and the absent-minded without their agreement? Leaving aside the perhaps extreme case of a transfer proceeding when nobody voted in favour, not untypically an estate might vote: for transfer 20 per cent.; against 40 per cent.; non-voters 40 per cent.; and the application would proceed.
Mr. Johnson goes on to point out that the Department of the Environment's own booklet "New Directions for Council Housing", sent to council chief executives in March, states:
Building societies will not wish to become involved in the ownership or management of council estates unless arrangements for transfer from the council have the agreement of the great majority of tenants.
That is what the Government said, yet they are introducing a system which allows transfer without such agreement.
The Government say that, where transfers go through, there will have to be a majority of significantly more than half the tenants in favour. If that is the Government's position, there is no reason why they should not accept the amendments, which are positive amendments for a voting system. If the Government believe that that should be a precondition, then let them write it into the Bill. If the Government maintain their position, they are out of touch


with local authority associations of all colours and with the majority of financial backers whom they are seeking to encourage, let alone the tenants.
Like other hon. Members, I have had meetings with tenants and there has been unanimous incredulity at and opposition to the Government's concept of a voting system. Quality Street and the TSB-run Property Investment Company Ltd. have made it clear that they consider that the great majority of tenants should be in favour of transfer and that the voting system should provide for that.
What is the Government's defence case for the voting system? The Minister of State said:
We have thought carefully about it … If people have looked at all the structures—not just at what is written in the Bill but at the pre-selection procedures that we have described —and are still not interested enough to register a vote, the most likely and common-sense conclusion is that they do not much care."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, February 1988; c 1145.]
Did the Minister not realise that that reveals exactly the Government's ideology and their anti-democratic position? If people do not have a view, the Government will make their decision for them. The Government will say, "We know what they want and we shall make sure that, whatever they think and say, our will prevails." Those people have not chosen to be transferred. They have not assented to that, but the Government will make sure that it happens. That is not a case of tenants' choice, but of the Government imposing their will. That is an example of the Government as the worst inertia salesman or saleswoman in the land.
It is a principle of law in this country, and has been for a long time, that silence means no. "Halsbury's Laws of England"—there is no greater basis for authority—states in paragraph 250 of volume 9:
The offeror cannot bind the offeree against the latter's will by expressly stipulating that if the offeree does nothing he will be bound to a contract.
Does the Minister not agree that the voting system in the Bill breaks the principle of English law that silence means no? It does not mean, "Yes, I am happy for the property to be transferred and for you to do the job for me," but, as the Government well know, "Thank you but I have not given my assent."
The voting system abuses electoral law, the concept of electoral system and the concept of voting. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said, under the Government's system the dead are voting. The Government are having to get the dead on their side to force the legislation through. The more people die, the happier the Government will be. If they cannot get the living to vote for them, my goodness they will get the dead. If someone alive on the relevant date dies before the end of the consultation period, the Government will have the word yes plastered all over the coffin as it comes downstairs.

Mr. George Howarth: Or goes upstairs.

Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman says, we hope that some of those people will be going upstairs, too. Downstairs is only a temporary measure. Perhaps we should leave the theology to another debate.
The same applies to people who are resident in a flat or a house on the relevant date and subsequently leave before the end of the consultation period. They will count as yes votes, too. Even if one moves and therefore has no right to a say, one will nevetheless be voting yes. That does not even include people who are in hospital or in the forces and those who cannot be contacted.
The ADC said:
On this, the Government have surely already lost the argument.
On this, the Government have not only lost the argument, they have not even persuaded the Prime Minister. Last Thursday, at the Dispatch Box, she said that the Bill required a majority of people to be in favour for a transfer to go through. Last week, we had a debate on the confusion in the Government's housing and planning policies. When the Prime Minister says twice that the Bill does one thing and the Department of the Environment writes in something else, there is something pretty rotten at the heart of Government.
Last June, the Prime Minister made a clear commitment that majority means majority. We need to go back to that commitment and have a clear undertaking that the Government will amend the legislation now. I warn them that their credibility and reputation may well hinge, at the end of the day, on this issue and this group of amendments. The Government have denied democracy to every council tenant in Britain by this Bill. They now have a last opportunity in the House to do something about it.

Mr. Waldegrave: First, I shall dispose of one or two of the more exciting headlines. Empty flats are not counted as yes votes. Voting goes by a majority of tenants eligible to vote and, obviously, there are no such tenants in properties vacant on the relevant day. In addition, the dead do not count. Clause 96(2) allows the applicant to proceed if the number of tenants to whom clause 95 applies who have voted no does not exceed 50 per cent. If one is dead, one is no longer a tenant to whom clause 95 applies.
We dealt with the situation in Scotland several times in Committee. The reason that Scotland does not have a voting system, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey accepted, even if other hon. Members did not, is that there is a completely different legal system in Scotland and freehold flats are routinely bought and sold. Under the Scottish system, therefore, everyone can have a separate landlord.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) rightly said, our case rests on the fact that no tenant need be transferred from the landlord of his or her choice and each tenant can stay a council tenant. The hon. Gentleman then fell back on the argument that the underlying landlord, the council, would then have to pay the higher rents, if it wishes to leave the sub-tenant on the same rent as before. That is perfectly true, and there is nothing particularly unusual about it. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) told us about the case, which is not so rare, of councils having property which is leased with an underlying leasehold from somewhere else. It is then up to the council to decide how much rent to charge and how much to subsidise a particular property, assuming that the rents are higher, although that may not be so.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister accept that, under the provisions of clause 91, it is theoretically possible that


someone who has died after the relevant date will be considered to have voted for the proposition in the consideration of those who voted against and those who voted for? What other example can he quote of a system where no one needs to vote in favour, and unless 51 per cent. have voted against the vote is considered to be in favour of change?

Mr. Waldegrave: These provisions are directly precedented because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they stem from existing legislation. He will know that they have been carried from the 1986 Act.

Mr. Boateng: The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was a simple one. Will the dead have a right to vote—yes or no?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows that what I have said is true. No one who is dead can be a qualifying tenant. That must be a truism.
Since we discussed these matters in Committee, we have developed a policy that is aimed at meeting some of the legitimate, as opposed to the absurd, concerns of the Opposition parties. It was argued that we must invent a proper pre-selection procedure. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right when he says that no financier, whether a building society or a hank, will want to lend money to a housing association or any other body when there is not tenant support for it. He claimed to quote me saying that on a previous occasion, and that is likely to be right.
We have introduced a system whereby the Housing Corporation will be able to judge an applicant and refuse permission for the application to go forward if there is not a reasonable amount of support among the tenants. That is perhaps unnecessary, however, for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. As he has said, it is exceedingly unlikely that an approved landlord—a housing association or any other body—will wish to pursue the application if there is not considerable support for it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman made a long speech and I have been pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to assist in bringing the debate to a conclusion.

Mr. Hughes: I am alive.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am glad to hear that. Sometimes there has been doubt about that.

Mr. Hughes: Be rude to the dead but not to the living.
If the logic is that the requirement will be a majority before the investment is made and the system operates, why is that provision not written into the Bill? That is the position in Scotland and in the Prime Minister's mind that is what is in the Bill, but the Minister and his colleagues refuse to insert that provision.

Mr. Waldegrave: I have explained that in Scotland it is possible for every tenant to go in exactly the direction he wants. In Scotland it is not necessary to have an underlying landlord who owns the property. I find myself making no apology to the hon. Gentleman.
I recognise that these matters have been debated at public meetings which have been attended by many tenants. Some of these meetings have been addressed not

altogether truthfully by some who have represented Opposition parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I was referring to no Member of this place.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can refer hon. Members to a number of leaflets which have been circulated by Opposition parties, the contents of which are far from the truth.
If there are tenants who continue to have little interest in the procedures that we have introduced—that is after they have been visited and pursued by the independent teller, who has a duty laid upon him to ensure that he brings home the right to vote to everyone who is present —I have nothing to apologise for in saying that they do not care one way or the other. I have in mind those who say, "I do not care and I am not going to vote," after all the procedures have been completed.
The finest hour of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was his ambushing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time. That has given him a great deal of pleasure. That is not relevant, however, to the debate. The hon. Gentleman was an assiduous attender of the Standing Committee and he knows exactly what the proposals have been all the way through.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The I'rime Minister does not.

Mr. Waldegrave: That may be because my right hon. Friend, sadly for us, was not a member of the Committee. Undoubtedly we would have proceeded a great deal faster if she had been. I doubt whether many Opposition Members would have dared to open their mouths if my right hon. Friend has been a member of the Committee. The truth of the matter was set out clearly in the discussion paper, the White Paper and the Bill. It was discussed ad nauseam in Committee, and that can be said too of many of the arguments that have been advanced by Opposition Members tonight.
We have made all the changes which were argued for sensibly by my hon. Friends in Committee. We have done so to ensure that there is competition among applicants, a proper procedure to ensure that applicants are approved and of a high standard and that the sort of canvassing by private landlords that was described in Committee cannot take place. Despite all the misleading propaganda that has been disseminated by those representing Opposition parties, a recent survey conducted by the National Consumer Council showed that up to 25 per cent. of council tenants are interested now—this is before they have seen the truth of the matter—in transferring from the council to a housing association. We shall bring forward a system that will meet their needs. As I said on Second Reading and have said since, I suspect that, once the Bull takes its place of the statute book and has been shown to work, Opposition Members will find that they will come to support it.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: We have heard the Minister explain the Government's alleged commitment to tenant democracy. I shall briefly place on record the Government's performance in my constituency. There is not much point looking into the crystal ball when we can read the history book, and I shall describe how a ballot was conducted in my constituency to determine the future of Telford development corporation houses. The Government promised repeatedly that tenants would be


consulted on the future ownership of their homes. I received two letters from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), which contained repeated promises and assertions about consulting tenants. I am talking about 8,000 tenants in my constituency who are very anxious about who their landlord should be.
I wrote to the Minister immediately after the general election seeking her assurance that there would be proper consultation. On 20 August 1987, she replied:
My Department has now written to the Development Corporation asking them to set in hand arrangements for the consultation of their tenants at the earliest practicable time. It is for the Corporation to decide, in discussion with the housing associations and the council, exactly when the consultation can take place, but I hope that it can be during October".
I assumed that that meant that consultation would take place within a month. However, from the Government's point of view, something disastrous then happened. A ballot took place in Peterborough in November about the future of new town houses in Peterborough. The result was that 93 per cent. favoured transfer to the local authority, thinking that a democratically elected local authority was the right organisation to take control of their houses.
9 pm
I wrote again to the Minister, who replied on 29 February this year. As a mass of convolution and incompetence, her reply would take some beating. She said:
I am still considering issues such as the timing of consultation and the financial arrangements for transfer in the light of the exercise carried out in Peterborough last November.
Tories do not like democracy when it produces results that they do not want. The next part of her letter takes some beating for incompetence. She said:
With regard to the community centres, shops … there are a number of possible alternatives. For example, regardless of the outcome of any tenant consultation which is undertaken, it could be decided to negotiate the transfer of these assets to the local authority. Similarly, transfer to the housing associations is another possibility. Alternatively, one could wait until the consultation has taken place and then try and negotiate the transfer of these assets to whatever alternative landlord has gained the majority of votes on each estate.
If that is not making policy on the back of a fag packet, I do not know what is. This Bill has the same characteristics.
Surprise, surprise, at the end of April this year—this is the end of the Government's commitment to tenant consultation in my constituency—the Government postponed indefinitely any ballot for tenants in my constituency. The Government's record of tenant consultation in The Wrekin is one of consulting tenants or anyone else only when they know that they will get the answer they want. As soon as they know that democracy means people giving the thumbs down to the Government or the Telford development corporation, they postpone any democratic consultation. The Bill, including its commitment to tenants' consultation, is not worth the paper that it is written on, as my constituency experience shows.

Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that it probably helps to be dead to vote Conservative and it certainly helps to be politically dead to be a Minister at the Dispatch Box having to argue this nonsense.
Let me assist the Minister in better understanding his Bill. The Prime Minister does not understand it and it appears to us that neither does the Minister of State. Clause 95(2) states:
This section applies to any qualifying tenant, or tenant under a long tenancy, who on the relevant date occupied a dwelling-house proposed to be included in the acquisition.
The definition of "relevant date" is given in clause 86(4) which states:
'the relevant date' … means the date on which is made the application under section 89 below".
We know from what was said in Committee that that process can last as long as six months. It must follow that, if anyone has died since the relevant date, up to six months before, when the votes are being counted and those who have not voted against are said to have voted in favour, clearly the dead will have had a vote.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Clauses 95 and 96 provide that they must be tenants. It follows that they must be alive. If the hon. Gentleman wants to consider an odd situation, it is possible that the teller may not have been aware of a very recent death. If he is aware of a death, the electorate is smaller in number as a result of the death.

Mr. Banks: Who is going to inform the teller? That brings us to another good question. What about the independent telling of the ballot or vote? Although we understand that the Secretary of State can appoint someone, nothing is written into the Bill about that.
It is clear to Opposition Members that under the present system, translating it back into broader political terms, the Prime Minister could say to the electorate that no one needs to vote Conservative at the next general election, but unless 51 per cent. of the electorate vote against, they will get a Conservative Government. Frankly, I challenge the Minister to say where on earth he could find any particular reference point to that perversion of democracy by anyone's definition. It makes Pol Pot look like a progressive. It makes Vlad the Impaler look like someone who is only interested in democracy. It makes the Prime Minister look like the totalitarian and Stalinist that she is and it makes the Minister look like the fool that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made him.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not wish to interfere with the hon. Member's peroration, but the ballot is not like a general election because he cannot select to have a Labour Government for himself, whereas tenants can choose to remain with the council.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister's sham of so-called tenant choice has been exposed. It is rather like Robin Hood and Maid Marian, although she has returned to her castle in Marsham street.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: She is coming to Halifax on Friday.

Mr. McCartney: I shall not ask why.
In Committee, the Minister was asked specific questions about tenants' entitlement to vote. I may use the practical example of my own daughter Karen and her husband, who are tenants on the Millers lane estate in


Wigan. Under the Government's proposals, only one of them will have a vote. Who will determine which of two joint tenants is to vote? Who will determine whether it is the husband or the wife who votes? What will happen if one joint tenant is working away from the property? Who will determine who actually casts the vote?
The situation grows even more incredible when one considers abstentions. A person living on an estate, registered as a legal tenant, and paying a legal rent, will under the Government's proposals be denied the right to a say in the determination of the tenancy and to affect the outcome of the ballot. Yet the Minister still hangs on to the concept of tenant choice and of the right of all tenants to share in determining their landlord.
It is incredible that a Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House that after eight years the Prime Minister does not know what she is talking about in respect of housing, for that is precisely what he said. The Minister said that the Prime Minister did not know what she was talking about on Thursday. He offered the plausible excuse that it was because she did not serve on the Standing Committee. It must be the only Committee on which she has not served, when one considers the control that she has over the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees.
Whether the Prime Minister was talking through the back or the front of her head, she made a commitment—both last Thursday and prior to the general election—that every tenant would have a right to vote in respect of transferred tenancies. The Minister is attempting to wriggle over the whole concept of a rigged ballot. It is really all about rigging the ballot, to ensure that local authorities will cede their rights to housing action trusts where they exist, and that local councils and their tenants will lose their right to control the housing stock.
An even more ludicrous situation applies in respect of the tenants of flats. Someone who has clearly voted not to change his landlord can remain as a council sub-tenant even if, because the ballot was rigged, there is a change of landlord. However, the local authority faces a further disincentive because it must accept the rent levels and other impositions of the new landlord.
The local authority will have to make two further decisions. It will have to decide whether to impose new rent levels and new conditions on a tenant who, in a so-called secret ballot, voted against them. Alternatively, the authority will have to do so in respect of other of its tenants, who will have to pick up the tab, in the common pool of rent levels. That will represent a subsidy for the tenant in question, in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-tenancy. That is a negation of democracy. Under no circumstances could anybody—even Pincochet in Chile —argue that such a proposal represented a proper plebiscite of the rights, conditions and views of local residents in determining policy.
The Minister is still wrigglng about the position in respect of voters who subsequently die—the zombie amendment, with the dead being taken to vote. What would happen if the votes were close? A whole estate could be transferred just because someone had gone to another place, to a happy home, either upstairs or downstairs. The Minister should not complain, although he has done so. We all know that it is a rigged system.
What about a tenant's right to challenge the ballot procedures if a majority of the tenants who participated in the ballot voted against changing the landlord? What

about the tenant's right to challenge a ballot in which the minority have imposed on the majority a change of landlord and the change of circumstances on an estate? That will create a minefield throughout the country because tenants will rightly seek legal redress because of rigged ballots and because their right to remain a local authority tenant will be denied and taken from them.
Finally, the Under-Secretary of State has still not answered a question which was asked in Committee and again tonight. In joint tenancies, why do not both tenants have the right to vote? Will the male or the female in a relationship be given the right to vote and thus to determine? Who will have the right to vote if, for example, two males or two females are living together, and who will determine which tenant will have the vote?
The Minister should answer these points because tenants will have to take legal redress to challenge their right to a vote which is being denied them. They are practical, sensible questions, irrespective of whether one will vote for or against the Government's policies. The Minister has an obligation to tell the House precisely what procedures will be used to determine whether a tenant will be disallowed or allowed to participate in the ballot.

Mr. Soley: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we are totally disatisfied with the Minister's response, which is a sham, and everyone knows that it is a sham, we shall seek to divide the House on this group of amendments.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the important debate it was quite clear that when using the word "ambush" the Minister, whose name is on the Bill, has admitted that the Prime Minister, whose name is also on the Bill, in this House, in the hearing of many and on the record of the Official Report gave me a wrong interpretation of this most important clause—although, of course, it might have been thought to be correct.
Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Prime Minister to come to the House to apologise and to put the matter right? Is there any way in which the House can command the attendance of the right hon. Lady, since her name is on the Bill, or will it be left entirely to her volition to come here to correct the grievious error which many people will have heard because the House is now broadcast?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is important is that the Prime Minister said in her answer to me on Thursday that she wanted to have another look at the matter. She said that specifically and it is recorded in the Official Report. She did not accept that what was in the Bill was what I asserted and she clearly believed that the Bill——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not matters for me. I do not have responsibility for them. However, they will no doubt be taken into account by the House when it reaches its conclusion and will, no doubt, have been heard by those who may have some responsibility for reporting such matters to the Prime Minister. They are not matters for me. Perhaps we can now get on.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter is simply this. Given that the


Prime Minister has said that she will look at the matter, is it not difficult, if not impossible, for the House properly to vote on the matter before we have had her response?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are matters for the House to take into account when reaching its conclusion. They are not matters for the Chair. I have no authority to instruct the House on these matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 234.

Division No. 381]
[9.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Gordon, Mildred


Allen, Graham
Gould, Bryan


Alton, David
Graham, Thomas


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Bernie (Tottenharn)


Armstrong, Hilary
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Battle, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Beckett, Margaret
Henderson, Doug


Bell, Stuart
Hinchliffe, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hogg, N. (Cnauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, Jimmy


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Blair, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Blunkett, David
Howells, Geraint


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bradley, Keith
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Buchan, Norman
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Caborn, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Leighton, Ron


Cartwright, John
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAllion, John


Cohen, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McCartney, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbyn, Jeremy
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McKelvey, William


Crowther, Stan
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fyfe, Maria
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William





O'Neill, Martin
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Patchett, Terry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L.
Stott, Roger


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wall, Pat


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N.


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Richardson, Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Robertson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Clare



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Allason, Rupert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Tony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Body, Sir Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hannam, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Christopher


Couchman, James
Hayes, Jerry


Cran, James
Hayward, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Heathcoat-Amory, David






Heddle, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rost, Peter


Hind, Kenneth
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ryder, Richard


Holt, Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Scott, Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Irvine, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irving, Charles
Shersby, Michael


Jack, Michael
Sims, Roger


Janman, Tim
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stokes, Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thorne, Neil


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wheeler, John


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raftan, Keith
Woodcock, Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Redwood, John



Renton, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. David Maclean.


Riddick, Graham

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 96

NOTICE BY APPLICANT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED

Amendment made: No. 360, in page 65, line 34, at end insert
`or, as the case may be, the disposal cost attributable to that property'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 98

CONSENT REQUIRED FOR SUBSEQUENT DISPOSALS

Amendment made: No. 250, in page 66, line 22, leave out from beginning to `for' in line 29 and insert—
'(3) If, apart from subsection (4) below, the consent of the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales would he required under section 9 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (control of dispositions of land by housing associations) for a disposal to which subsection (1) above applies, the Secretary of State shall consult that body before giving his consent in respect of that disposal for the purposes of that subsection.
(4) No consent shall be required under the said section 9'. [Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 101

EXTENSION ETC. OF RELEVANT PERIODS

Amendment made: No. 375, in page 67, line 12, at end insert—
`( ) Where a notice of revocation of the applicant's approval is served under subsection (4) of section 87 above and subsequently withdrawn as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, any relevant period which, apart from this subsection, would have expired before the withdrawal shall be taken to be extended by a period equal to that beginning with the date of the service of the notice of revocation and ending on the date of the withdrawal.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 105

INTERPRETATION OF PART IV. 1985 C. 68

Amendment made: No. 376, in page 68, line 11 [Clause 105], at end insert—
`"the Corporation" means the Housing Corporation or Housing for Wales but—

(a) an approval given by the Housing Corporation shall not have effect in relation to buildings or other property in Wales; and
(b) an approval given by Housing for Wales shall not have effect in relation to buildings or other property in England.'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 106

PREMIUMS ON LONG LEASES

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 68, line 35, leave out `to (3D)' and insert `and (3)'.

No. 55, in page 68, line 36, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

No. 56, in page 69, line 4, at end insert—
`(3) The reference in subsection (2) above to a power of the landlord to determine a tenancy does not include a reference to a power of re-entry for forfeiture for breach of any term or condition of the tenancy.'

No. 57, in page 69, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—
'(3) Subsection (3C) and (3D) shall be omitted and in subsection (5) for "(2)(c)" there shall be substituted "(2)(b)".' —[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 109

RENT OFFICERS: ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS RELATING TO HOUSING BENEFIT ETC.

Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 70, line 17, at end insert—
'The functions prescribed by the Secretary of State shall not apply to any tenancy or licence granted by a local authority'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 389, in page 70, line 22, after 'areas', insert—
'(bb) shall make provision that the rent level for any accommodation determined by a rent officer as reasonable for the calculation of rent allowance subsidy shall be the maximum rent chargeable by a landlord for that accommodation;'.

No. 390, in page 70, line 22, after 'areas' insert—
'(bc) shall make provision that the rent level determined by a rent officer as reasonable for a tenancy for the calculation of rent allowance subsidy shall not be lower than the rent level for that tenancy determined by a rent assessment committee under this Act or under the Rent Act 1977;'.

No. 92, in page 70, line 24, at end insert—
'; and

(d) shall not apply to a tenancy granted by a registered housing association.'.

No. 95, in page 70, line 24, at end insert—
', and

(d) shall make provision that the Rent Officer, in determining the rent on an assured tenancy for the purpose of housing benefit subsidy shall, if he determines that the rent payable is above the proper market level, in every case provide the local authority in writing with such details as shall be prescribed in the order concerning the availability of suitable alternative properties in the authorities area at the rent level which he has determined.'.

No. 97, in page 70, line 24, at end insert—
'; and

(d) shall contain provisions such that the rent of an assured tenancy determined by a Rent Assessment Committee shall be the minimum rent eligible for rent allowance subsidy. The minimum eligible rent will be the rent payable after the deduction, in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed, of any items ineligible for the purposes of calculating entitlement to benefit.'.

No. 98, in page 70, line 24, at end insert—
'; and

(d) shall make provisions for a local authority to have a right of appeal against a Rent Officer's determination in any particular case.'.

No. 96, in page 70, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) In section 20 of that Act (income related benefits) at the end of subsection (8) there shall be added the words "or maximum payments eligible for a rent allowance.".'.

No. 94, in page 70, line 47, at end insert—
'(8) In Section 51(t) of the Social Security Act 1986 shall be added:

"(iv) Pending a determination by the Rent Officer under section 106 of the Housing Act 1988 the authority shall make payments calculated on the basis of the actual rent payable."
(9) No reduction in an authority's entitlement or subsidy shall take effect until the notice of a determination by the Rent Officer is received by the authority.'.

Mr. Bradley: I have been asked to move the amendments briefly. I am happy to do that, because in the past few hours we have witnessed the biggest shambles that I imagine the House has ever witnessed involving the Housing Bill. It would be a complete waste of time for me to contribute further to that shambles.
As a new Member of the House, I thought when I served on the Committee to consider the Housing Bill, that there would be some meaning to our discussions and thattoday we would be debating the consequences of those discussions. This evening, and particularly the Minister's response to the last set of amendments, has made it clear that that was an illusion. Therefore, we can move the rest of the amendments very briefly so that we do not

contribute any more to the shambles of the Housing Bill, which is a complete mess between the Secretary of State and the Minister.
The amendments centre on the important provisions relating to housing benefit and rents in the private rented sector. They concern the powers of the rent officer and the rent assessment committee, and the particular power of the Secretary of State to set a rent stop to the new market rents that will be charged.
Throughout the discussions on the Housing Bill, we have argued, whether through social security or by the provisions of the Housing Bill, that the only way in which low-income families will be able to afford the new rent regime that will be set up by the Housing Bill is if housing benefit fully covers the new rents. [Interruption.]
I know that many Conservative Members are not interested in listening to the debate, as other discussions are taking place around the Chamber. They are not interested in the issues that we are debating and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would prefer them to participate in the debate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: If the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) wishes to contribute to the debate, I am happy to give way.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I was saying that the noise was coming from places other than behind the Bar of the House. Other people were talking; the hon. Gentleman knows to whom I am referring.

Mr. Bradley: That sums up the contribution of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to the debate on the Housing Bill. He has no interest in the topic or in the needs of the tenants of Littleborough and Saddleworth. I am sure that they will recognise that at the next general election.
We are talking about the rent stop that will be imposed by the Government and the way in which it will apply to many low-income families in desperate need of private rented accommodation. It could be summed up by a letter that I am sure will be received by many Members of Parliament in their advice surgeries after the Bill is enacted. Such a letter may be written to the Minister and it may say something like the following:
I am a widow responsible for two children. I have always worked and have never had to claim means-tested benefits before now. I live in an assured tenancy and pay a rent of £67 per week, which I was able to meet until I was forced to give up work due to illness. I have claimed income support which goes part of the way to meeting the day-to-day needs of my family, but the local authority is only allowed to pay £55 towards my rent. The local authority tells me that it has no discretion and that the £55 is a rent stop imposed by central Government. I don't know if I will get better or how long it will take. I don't know how to meet the £12 a week that I am short for the rent. My only options appear to be as follows: (a) to go into rent arrears while I hunt for cheaper accommodation; (b) to go without food and other essentials so that I can meet the full rent commitment; (c) to give up my present accommodation and report as homeless to the local authority; or (d) to go into arrears, have possession proceedings taken against me and again end up homeless.
Option (a) is a difficult and time-consuming process in this area at the best of times, but virtually impossible in my present state of health. Option (c) depends upon the local


authority not finding me intentionally homeless. I hope it will have something more than a bed and breakfast hotel to offer. What should I do?
That is a direct question to the Minister. He should explain what people in such circumstances should do. People at the top of the rented market will not be able to afford the accommodation that his new private sector regime will impose on many families desperately seeking accommodation.
For once I want the Minister to answer a question that has been posed. He would not give way to me during a previous debate when he again attacked local authorities which are trying to give information to their tenants about the Housing Bill and perhaps about this issue. He made that attack during an Opposition day debate on housing three or four weeks ago. He said that a local authority has issued misinformation about the Housing Bill. I asked him to supply me with a copy of the leaflet that Manchester city council had issued. He acknowledged receipt of my letter but has not supplied me with the leaflet. I should like to know when he will supply me with the leaflet.
I should also like to question the Minister on a concession he made in Committee. We have heard a lot about concessions and about the fact that he has reneged on many of the commitments he gave in Committee. He gave a concession on amendment No. 98 which gives a local authority a right to appeal against the rent level set by the rent officers' determination. He gave an undertaking that the regulations would provide "some form of appeal" by the local authority. What rights will that appeal give and where is his provision for the appeal? I should like him to say that the provision can be used by the authority in every case and that the Government do not restrict it to specific circumstances.
I have moved the amendments briefly. A large part of clause 109 will put decent housing, backed up by rent allowances through housing benefit, out of reach of many people. I should like the Minister to honour his earlier commitment that housing benefit will be available. Cut after cut in housing benefit has forced people out of decent housing. He should honour the commitments that he has given and, for once, answer the questions put to him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to speak especially to amendments Nos. 389 and 390. They are linked to the important point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley).
We have moved from debates about the way in which people can decide to part V of the Bill and how much a decision or lack of a decision will cost them. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and I tabled the amendments to address the most fundamental defects of the new regime for the calculation of rent allowance subsidy and housing benefit. We want to ensure—it will be crucial to tenants—that there will be a guarantee that a rent assessment committee and a rent officer will not determine different levels of rent as suitable for the same accommodation. It is equally crucial that, once a rent officer has deemed a rent suitable for any accommodation—whether or not a decision has been made by a rent assessment committee—the tenant should not have to pay rent at a level higher than that used for calculating the housing benefit to which he or she is entitled.
In the amendments, we are trying to ensure that rent determined as reasonable by a rent officer shall be the maximum rent chargeable by a landlord. If not, a rent

assessment officer may decide that a reasonable rent for a property should be about £80—that is the amount by which housing benefit is calculated—but the rent may be assessed at over £100, leading to a shortfall. As the system of subsidy will be through housing benefit, for someone on Government subsidy that shortfall will be unmanageable.
Amendment No. 390 provides
that the rent level determined by a rent officer as reasonable for a tenancy for the calculation of rent allowance subsidy shall not be lower than the rent level for that tenancy determined by a rent assessment committee under this Act or under the Rent Act 1977".
Instead of coming to the rescue of tenants on state or low incomes with a system of guaranteed affordable rents, the Government are saying that, through the DHSS housing benefit system, the taxpayer will subsidise any shortfall. That presumes, first, that the amount of rent paid is equal to the amount of subsidy, which clearly is not the case, and, secondly, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Services—if he is to be in charge of writing the cheques—will continue to meet the subsidy.
Since 1979, the Government have regularly cut housing benefit. When times get harder—today's economic news is not too encouraging—we do not trust the Government not to cut housing benefit again. The more housing benefit is cut, the more there will be prejudice against people who desperately need housing and do not have the personal income and capacity to go out into the market place to buy it.
We have tabled two straightforward amendments. They are crucial to the proper and just functioning of a system that says that housing will be available and that, no matter how low one's income, one will not be priced out of the market. The figures which the Under-Secretary of State revealed to me last week of the record numbers of homeless show that record numbers of people in England and Wales are being priced out of the market, in town and country, in the north and south. We are trying to ensure that the welfare state—part of whose legacy we are celebrating in the coming weeks—is not seen as an irrelevance in coping with the new jungle of the Government's market place. I hope that the Government will accept the principle and detail of the amendments.

Mr. Waldegrave: The reasons for the Government opposing amendment No. 93 are not as obvious as our reasons for opposing some other amendments. It would confine the rent officer procedure to benefit claims submitted by private sector tenants. The precise definition of cases to be referred to the rent officer is still under consideration, in consultation with local authority associations. It is important to ensure that the scope of the arrangements is sufficient to embrace all appropriate cases.
Although the rent officer procedure has been formulated with the intention that it should apply to private sector tenants—those who claim rent allowances—the question whether one small category of rent rebate cases might sensibly be referred to the rent officer is being discussed. If there were a desire to include the rent rebate cases, amendments to the Bill would be needed to include a reference to rent rebate subsidy.
Amendment No. 389, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, would require the rent officer's assessment under the clause 109 procedure to become the maximum rent chargeable for the


accommodation. I shall be more friendly about amendment No. 390, but amendment No. 389 would fly in the face of the principle of our scheme.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the first part of whose speech I did not hear completely—through no fault of his—but I got the general drift. He knows that the present system for housing benefit has a rent stop, to which he rightly referred. There is an interim system of regional rents and so on. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has fully recognised that the Bill does away with that system and improves the position for exactly those tenants to whom he referred.
The real market rent must be met by housing benefit for those eligible for it. Under the present interim system, there are circumstances in which that need not be so. The Bill makes it clear that in his new role the rent officer merely has to ensure against the possibility—as we discussed in Committee—of rents being led by a racket, so that housing benefits lead the rents ahead of the real market rent. That is all—no more and no less—that the scheme intends to do.
Amendment No. 390, providing that the rent officer's assessment shall not be lower than a rent determined by a rent assessment committee, is unnecessary. Where the rent assessment committee has determined the rent for a tenancy, the regulations will provide that that rent will automatically be accepted as a reasonable market rent. The point made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is therefore met. The rent assessment committee's assessment overrides the rent officer's assessment if there is a conflict. Amendment No. 97 is likewise unnecessary.
Amendment No. 92 would exclude registered housing association lettings. It is exceedingly unlikely that registered housing associations will be relevant in this respect. They receive large subsidies to keep their rents below market levels, but it seems wrong to exclude them, lest there is some isolated case in which the rent charged by an association is above market level and in which referral to the rent officer is appropriate. That is unlikely, but we have decided to leave in that provision.
Amendment No. 95 would require rent officers to consider the availability of suitable alternative accommodation. We do not believe that that is the role of the rent officer. His job will be to establish whether a particular rent that is being charged is reasonable in terms of the market and to assess the claimant's accommodation on the basis of the criteria prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How, in practice, will that be possible without carrying out a comparative exercise, which has traditionally been required during the last 20 years? That seems to me to be the logical action for rent officers to take.

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, in assessing the market the rent officer must look at a variety of comparable properties.
I return to the important point which was raised by the hon. Member for Withington and which is dealt with in amendment No. 98. I gave, and I repeat now, a firm undertaking in Committee that there will be a right of

appeal against rent officer assessments. That is important. We have had complicated discussions with local authority interests about it and about the best way to deal with it. There is no dispute between us, but there are a variety of ways of dealing with the matter. Therefore, we are looking at it in detail. We want to devise a system that can operate quickly—it must not be too elaborate—and produce fair decisions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand by our undertaking to introduce an appeals procedure. If an amendment is needed, we shall table such an amendment in the other place.
Amendment No. 96 is directed at our intention to place a limit in due course on housing benefit in circumstances where the claimant is occupying unreasonably expensive accommodation. That is what local authorities do already. It is a matter that we discussed in Committee. It is right that such a limit should be introduced. There is nothing new about that principle.
The power to limit benefit will not be used until adequate market evidence is available, but the need to make proper use of public funds makes it imperative that there should be some kind of restriction on such cases. That is no different from what local authorities do already.
Amendment No. 94 would provide for the making of interim payments, pending assessment of a benefit claimant's rent by the rent officer. We recognise that some provision for interim payments is likely to be needed and we are discussing with the local authority associations and rent officers what form it should take. We would certainly not accept the principle of the amendment that the payment should be based on whatever rent is currently being paid, however unreasonable that rent might be. An interim arrangement will be needed.
There is a difference of opinion about some of these matters but I hope that I have reassured hon. Members about others and that they will feel able not to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Bradley: In the light of the Minister's reply, and given his assurance that local authorities will have the right of appeal and that housing benefit will be paid on new market rents in full, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Soley: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 70, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
`(a) shall not be made in the first instance unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58 and 59.

Mr. Soley: It may be convenient if I allow the Minister to respond, as he has gone some way towards meeting our point.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is little between us. When we discussed clause 109—it was clause 106 in Committee—Opposition Members argued that all orders made under the clause should be subject to the affirmative resolution. We took the view that that would be an unreasonably cumbersome procedure. However, we accepted that the initial order made under the clause, which will set out the new procedures for the first time, will attract particular interest and that Parliament might reasonably expect to have an automatic


opportunity to debate it. Therefore, we propose as a compromise that the provision in the Bill should be modified to the extent of requiring that the affirmative resolution procedure should be applied to the first order made under clause 109. That is what amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are designed to do.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 70, line 19, after `instrument', insert—
'which except in the case of the first order to be made shall be'.

No. 59, in page 70, line 24, at end insert—
`and the first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of is has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 114

AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 242, in page 72, line 28, at end insert—
'and in that Schedule Part I contains general amendments and Part II contains amendments consequential on the establishment of Housing for Wales'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Schedule 12

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 243, in page 115, line 12. at end insert—

'PART I

GENERAL AMENDMENTS'.

No. 365, in page 115, line 18, at end add—
'2. In section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Procedure for making certain orders), in subsection (8) (definitions of "relevant area" and "local authority") after the words "Part IV of the Local Government Act 1985" there shall be inserted "a housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988".'.

No. 367, in page 115, line 18, at end insert—

'The Local Goverment Act 1974

In section 25 of the Local Government Act 1974 (local government administration: authorities subject to investigation), in subsection (1) after paragraph (bd) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(be) any housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988".'.

No. 60, in page 115, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert—
'2. In the Rent Act 1977, sections 68 and 69 (which provide for applications by a local authority for the determination of a fair rent and for applications for certificates of fair rent) shall cease to have effect as respects applications made before the commencement of this Act.
2A. In section 77 of that Act (which provides for the reference of restricted contracts to rent tribunals by the lessor, the lessee or the local authority) the words "or the local authority" shall be omitted.'

No. 366, in page 115, line 33, at end insert—

'The Justices of the Peace Act 1979

In section 64 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (disqualification in certain cases of justices who are members of local authorities) at the end of subsection (6) there shall be added the words "and a housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act I988".'.

No. 361, in page 115, line 34, at end insert—
'4A. In Schedule 16 to the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 (bodies to whom Part X applies) after paragraph 8 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
8A. A Housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988.".'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Ms. Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 396, in page 116, line 13, at end insert—

'9. In Part I of Schedule 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 there shall be inserted after (c).

"(d) an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988."
10. In part II of the Schedule 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 there shall be inserted after "Housing Act 1985" in paragraph 2(1)

"or an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988."
11. In Part II of Schedule I of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983 there shall be inserted after paragraph 4:

Statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988

4A. Where the spouse is entitled to occupy the dwelling house by virtue of a statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988, the court may by order direct that, as from such date as may be specified in the order, that spouse shall cease to he entitled to occupy the dwelling house and that the other spouse shall be deemed to he the tenant or, as the case may be, the sole tenant under that statutory tenancy.".".

The amendment is sponsored by the Shelter Housing Advisory Committee and the One Parent Family Association. The Bill as it stands is confusing and does not give legal powers for the transfer of assured joint tenancies on the break-up of a marriage following divorce. As hon. Members are probably aware, if a marriage breaks up and ends in divorce it is possible for one of the partners to apply for the tenancy to be transferred directly into one person's name. Unfortunately, the Bill does not give the legal powers to the courts to enable them to transfer what was a joint assured tenancy to one of the partners when the property is settled and the divorce is agreed.
I understand that in the discussions between the Under-Secretary of State and the organisations that I have mentioned, an assurance was given that an amendment would be placed before the House to change this situation. I shall say no more about the amendment, because I should like to hear what the Under-Secretary of State has to say.

Mrs. Roe: We gave assurances in Committee that we would bring forward amendments to the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. Those assurances still apply. The amendments, which we shall introduce in another place, will have the same intention as the amendment moved by the hon. Lady. They will extend the scope of the Act to assured tenancies so that, in the event of a divorce, judicial separation or decree of nullity, the courts may allocate an assured as part of the settlement. They will also cover assured agricultural occupancies, which the hon. Lady's amendment does not. We do not think that it will be necessary to introduce a consequential amendment along the lines of paragraph 11 of the amendment since a statutory periodic assured tenancy, unlike a statutory tenancy under the Rent Act 1977, is a true tenancy and not a personal right of occupation.
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurances that we have these amendments in hand and will withdraw her amendment.

Ms. Primarolo: We look forward to seeing the amendments coming before the House, and in view of the Under-Secretary of State's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 244, in page 117, line 30 leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 118.

No 62, in page, 118, line 23 at beginning insert—
'(1) In section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (information to be contained in rent books), in subsection


(1)(b) after the word "tenancy" there shall be inserted "or let on an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section after the word "tenancy" there shall be added "or let on an assured tenancy within the meaning of Part I of the Housing Act 1988".'

No. 79, in page 118, line 23 leave out
`the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985'
and insert 'that Act'.

No. 63, in page 118, line 39 leave out
`Chapter I or Chapter III of'.

No. 245, in page 118, line 39, at end insert—

`PART II

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HOUSING FOR WALES

The Land Commission Act 1967

31. In section 56(4) of the Land Commission Act 1967 (bodies exempted from betterment levy) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(ea) Housing for Wales".

The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967

32. In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments etc. subject to investigation) after the entry "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted—
Housing for Wales".

The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970

33. In section 342 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (disposals of land between Housing Corporation and housing societies) and in section 342A of that Act (disposals by certain housing associations) after the words "Housing Corporation" in each place where they occur there shall be inserted "or Housing for Wales".

The Land Corporation Act 1973

34. In section 32(7B)(b) of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (supplementary provisions about home loss payments) after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted "or Housing for Wales".

The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

35. In Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Part II (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place the following entry—
Housing for Wales".

The Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Act 1975

36. In Schedule 2 of the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Act 1975 (bodies corporate affected by section 5 of that Act as to their power to borrow in currencies other than sterling) after the entry "The Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted—
Housing for Wales".

The Development of Rural Wales Act 1976

37. In section 8(2) of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 (assistance to the Development Board for Rural Wales from public authorities and others) for the words "The Housing Corporation" there shall be substituted "Housing for Wales".

The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976

38. In section 5(3) of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (no statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to Crown or to local authority etc.) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(da) Housing for Wales".

The Rent Act 1977

39. In section 15(2) (a) of the Rent Act 1977 (landlord's interest belonging to housing association etc.) after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted—
(aa) Housing for Wales".

40. In each of the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, sections 86(2) (a) (tenancies to which Part VI applies), 93(1) (increase of rent without notice to quit) and Schedule 12 (certificates of fair rent) in paragraph 12 (meaning of "secure tenancy"), after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted "or Housing for Wales".

The Criminal Law Act 1977

41. In section 7(5) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (authorities who may authorise occupation by protected intending occupier for purposes of offence of adverse occupation of residential premises) after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted—
(ba) Housing for Wales".

The National Health Service Act 1977

42. In section 28A(2) (e) of the National Health Service Act 1977 (power to make payments towards expenditure on community services) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraph "and
(vii) Housing for Wales.".

43. In section 28B(1) (b) (v) of that Act (power of Secretary of State to make payments towards expenditure on community services in Wales) for the words "the Housing Corporation" there shall be substituted "Housing for Wales."

The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980

44. In Schedule 16 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (bodies to whom Part X of that Act applies) after paragraph 9 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
9a. Housing for Wales.

The Finance Act 1981

45. In section 107(3) of the Finance Act 1981 (exemption from stamp duty in case of sale of houses at discount by local authorities etc.) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(ca) Housing for Wales.

The Housing Act 1985

46. In the Housing Act 1985 for the words "Housing Corporation" in each place where they occur there shall be substituted "Corporation".

47. In Part I of that Act (introductory provisions—authorities and bodies other than local housing authorities) after section 6 there shall be inserted the following section—
6A. In this Act "the Corporation" has the meaning assigned by section 2A of the Housing Associations Act 1985.

48. In section 57 of that Act (index of defined expressions: Part II) after the entry relating to "compulsory disposal" there shall be inserted—


"the Corporation
section 6A".

49. In section 117 of that Act (index of defined expressions: Part IV) after the entry relating to "co-operative housing association" there shall be inserted—


"the Corporation
section 6A".

50. In section 188 of that Act (index of defined expressions: Part V) after the entry relating to "co-operative housing association" there shall be inserted—


"the Corporation
section 6A".

51. In section 238 of that Act (index of defined expressions: Part VII) after the entry relating to "clearance area" there shall be inserted—


"the Corporation
section 6A".

52. In section 459 of that Act (index of defined expressions: Part XIV) after the entry relating to "building society" there shall be inserted—


"the Corporation
section 6A".

53. In section 577 of that Act (index of defined expressions: Part XVI) after the entry relating to "co-operative housing association" there shall be inserted—


"the Corporation
section 6A".

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

54. In section 58(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (exempt landlords) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(ea) Housing for Wales".

The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988

55. In section 376(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes act 1988 (qualifying borrowers and lenders) after paragraph (k) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(ka) Housing for Wales.

56. In section 560(2)(e) of that Act (persons who are sub-contractors or contractors for the purposes of Chapter IV of Part XIII of that Act) after the words "Housing Corporation" there shall be inserted "Housing for Wales".'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Clause 115

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 379, in page 72, line 35, after `110', insert—
`(Schemes for payments to assist local housing authority tenants to obtain other accommodation)'.

No. 380, in page 72, line 39, after '110', insert—
`(Schemes for payments to assist local housing authority
tenants to obtain other accommodation)'.—[Mr.Waldegrave.]

New Clause 21

COMPENSATION FOR MISREPRESENTATION OR CONCEALMENT

`Where a landlord obtains an order for possession of a dwelling-house let on an assured tenancy on one or more of the grounds in Schedule 2 to this Act and it is subsequently made to appear to the court that the order was obtained by misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, the court may order the landlord to pay to the former tenant such sum as appears sufficient as compensation for damage or loss sustained by that tenant as a result of the order.'—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

DUTY OF HOUSING CORPORATION AND HOUSING FOR WALES IN RELATION TO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

`At the end of section 75 of the 1985 Act (general functions of the Corporation) there shall be added the following subsection—
(5) Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 (local authorities: general statutory duty) shall apply to the Corporation as it applies to a local authority.".'. —[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

GUIDANCE AS TO MANAGEMENT OF ACCOMMODATION BY REGISTERED HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

`. After section 36 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 there shall be inserted the following section—

Issue of guidance by the Corporation.

36A.—(1) In accordance with the provisions of this section, the Corporation may issue guidance with respect to the management of housing accommodation by registered housing associations and, in considering under the preceding provisions of this Part whether action needs to be taken to secure the proper management of an association's affairs or whether there has been mismanagement, the Corporation may have regard (among other matters) to the extent to which any such guidance is being or has been followed.

(2) Guidance issued under this section may make different provision in relation to different cases and, in particular, in relation to different areas, different descriptions of housing accommodation and different descriptions of registered housing associations.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), guidance issued under this section may relate to—

(a) the housing demands for which provision should be made and the means of meeting those demands;
(b) the allocation of housing accommodation between individuals;
(c) the terms of tenancies and the principles upon which the levels of rent should be determined;
(d) standards of maintenance and repair and the means of achieving these standards; and
(e) consultation and communication with tenants.

(4) Guidance issued under this section may be revised or withdrawn but, before issuing or revising any guidance under this section, the Corporation—

(a) shall consult such bodies appearing to it to he representative of housing associations as it considers appropriate; and
(b) shall submit a draft of the proposed guidance or, as the case may be, the proposed revision to the Secretary of State for his approval.

(5) If the Secretary of State gives his approval to a draft submitted to him under subsection (3)(b), the Corporation shall issue the guidance or, as the case may be, the revision concerned in such manner as the Corporation considers appropriate for bringing it to the notice of the housing associations concerned.".'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss Government new clause 47—Consents to disposal of housing stock and application of receipts.

Mr. Ridley: I shall deal first with new clause 47 and then with new clause 30.
The purpose of new clause 47 is to clarify the criteria which I may consider when deciding whether to give consent to local authority applications for the disposal of housing, and the conditions that I can impose on such consent. Local authorities may dispose of property with my consent under sections 32 or 43 of the Housing Act 1985 and, if the disposal involves a gratuitous benefit given to the purchaser by the local authority, section 25 of the Local Government Act 1988. When a local authority wishes to dispose under section 32, the most commonly used power, my consent is given by virtue of section 34 of the same Act. The existing consent powers are silent as to the basis upon which such consent may be given.
A number of local authorities are considering selling their entire housing stock, subject to being given consent under section 32 of the 1985 Act. New clause 47 is intended to remove any doubt about my powers to adopt such criteria and impose such conditions as I consider relevant, particularly in relation to large-scale disposals, Subsection (2) amends section 34 and 43 of the 1985 Act by specifying that I may take into account the independence of the purchaser from the council, the extent to which the disposal results in the purchaser becoming the main or a substantial landlord in the area, the terms of the disposal, including the financial terms, and whatever else is considered relevant. Subsection (3) applies the new clause to Scotland. Subsections (4) to (6) are amendments to the legislation consequent to the power in subsection (2) to direct authorities in the use of proceeds.
Subsection (8) makes the clause effective from the date of publication. There is no retrospectivity. We are responding to an initiative from local authorities who wish to dispose of their stock before the Bill becomes law. I must clear away some misconceptions. This is not a major new Government policy, but the Government responding to a local authority initiative.
The clause does not dispose of council housing stock. It does not extend local authority powers to dispose of property, nor does it compel any local authority to dispose of its housing. Any disposal in that context will be a voluntary one, initiated by the local authority. Local authorities already have powers to dispose of property where my consent is already required. The clause simply clarifies those powers.
Large-scale disposals such as are being mooted now were not considered as possible when the existing consent powers were drafted. It is clear that there are considerations which apply to large-scale disposals which are not less likely to apply to the smaller scale. What is not clear is whether we have the powers to take some of those considerations into account as things stand.
For example, we are concerned not to perpetuate large monopolies of rented housing. As we want to provide a wider choice of rented housing and improve housing management, we believe it would be inappropriate—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Ridley: As we want to provide a wider choice of rented housing and improve housing management, we believe that it would be inappropriate to allow a stock of, say, 20,000 to transfer in a single block. There are other criteria, such as the need to ensure that the terms of the transfer are acceptable and the purchaser is independent.
If a council comes to us now for consent, we must be in a position to take into account every factor which we believe to be important and relevant. These applications will not wait until enactment of the Bill. They are being prepared now.
New clause 30 would give effect to the policy of the tenants' guarantee to tenants of registered housing associations. It enables the Housing Corporation and Scottish Homes and Homes for Wales to issue guidance to registered associations on the management of their housing stock. In exercising its duties and powers under part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985, in relation to the proper management of an association's affairs, the corporation would be able to have regard to the extent to which the association had followed the guidance.
Such guidance would apply to large-scale voluntary transfers, as in new clause 47, as well as to tenants' choice transfers. It will cover, broadly speaking, those for whom housing should be provided—for example, those who are inadequately housed, or homeless—and where housing requirements cannot be met, at prices within their means or at all, elsewhere in the local market. Groups with special difficulties such as members of ethnic minorities and the disabled should get special attention.
The guidance will also cover what terms should be offered. In addition to the statutory assured tenancy requirements, I would expect the corporation to insist on the incorporation of a number of contractual rights within the tenancy agreement. I do not suggest that these would replicate the existing secure tenancy provisions, but some elements familiar from the old tenants' charter—rights to exchange, to take in lodgers, to carry out improvements and so on—will certainly reappear.
The guidance will also cover clear policies, procedures, targets and responsibilities for maintenance and repair and tenant relations. Above all, associations must communicate to tenants in intelligible terms what their rights are and how they are seeking to meet their needs.
I believe that the new guidance that the Housing Corporation will bring forward, after consultation with the associations, for approval by me will meet the needs that have arisen in the debate to give the proper control which the House seeks and which has been debated earlier.

Mr. Soley: We are concerned about both the new clauses. I shall deal first with new clause 30.
The Government need to come clean on their intentions for the Housing Corporation. The Government are handing over to the corporation duties which, in the past, would have been carried out, at least to some extent, by local authorities. We all know that the Government are intent on strangling local authorities, and they have made it clear that they want an end to the provision of local authority housing. The Minister has said that several times. We do not yet know what role they see for the Housing Corporation, but we are told that there is some underlying guarantee. It would be wrong of me to go through the debates that have taken place today, but I reiterate that there is no guarantee. There is not even a published charter. There is a great vacuum, and everyone knows it.
The Housing Corporation is being told that it can turn its attention somehow to what landlords are doing, but no one has any real power. Tenants have no real power unless they have the force of a great deal of money to pay for bright and able solicitors to represent them, and even then their power will be limited. In effect, the Government are saying to the corporation, "We shall give you generalised powers that can be used in an unspecified way over a period." In effect, the Minister is saying, "We may add to or subtract from those powers from time to time."
The Minister for Housing and Planning has said already that, if the corporation becomes too large or bureaucratic, the Government may have to reconsider its position. We are not even sure whether the corporation has a secure future. I suspect, however, that, because its present leadership is to a considerable extent falling into line with the Government—perhaps it has no alternative—it will continue in being. To some extent, it will pay the Government to keep the corporation acting as it is and to give it rather vague and unspecified powers. That is not in the interests of the rented sector, either public or private.
It was new clause 47 which so much angered us last week and which so badly wrong-footed the Government. The Secretary of State rightly says that local authorities already have the power to transfer properties. The new and dramatic features of the clause were its contents and the way in which the Government proceeded with it. I shall describe the effect that we believe that it will have on housing and the way in which we believe the Government intend to use it.
First, the new clause is retrospective. The Government constantly lecture us about the undesirability of retrospective legislation, yet subsection 8 states:
This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 9th June 1988.
That is virtually the day on which the Government published it. That is retrospective legislation by any standard. The factor that angered so many Scottish Members—rightly, in my judgment—to the extent that they were ready and willing after an all-night sitting to take the House through a second night, was the Government's


decision to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill by introducing a new clause to the Bill that is before us, without taking it through consideration in Committee.
Subsection (3) of the new clause refers to
Section 13 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987
and the 1988 Bill is proceeding through Parliament. The Government could have amended the Bill in this Parliament by introducing an amendment in another place, but they chose not to do so. They decided instead to introduce—to slip through—a new clause to the Housing Bill, which had been considered in Committee by hon. Members representing only English or Welsh constituencies. The Committee membership did not include a Scottish Conservative Member or a Scottish Opposition Member. Scottish Members are right to be angry about the way in which the Government have proceeded.

Mr. Michael Fallon: There are three of them here.

Mr. Soley: There would have been more of them present the other night if the Government had not drawn stumps and surrendered by giving us this additional day.
What do the Government intend to do about housing with the new clause? Why is it that they chose to introduce it at the last moment? We are told that they did so because about 100 local authorities—most of them Conservative—wanted to transfer all their stock. That is the reason that was given. Although no doubt that explanation is part of the reason, the real reason for that is that the Government realised that, even with the grossly distorted voting system for transferring local authority stock, the vast majority of tenants are deeply angry and offended by the voting system.
Now that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber, perhaps he can tell us whether the Prime Minister was right to say on Thursday that the voting system should be carried out by a majority of those voting. That is what she said, although the Secretary of State will know that that was wrong and the system operates with the minority. It would be helpful if we could clear up that division within the Government.
Leaving that matter aside—although I hope that the Secretary of State will consider it, as he has an opportunity to put the record straight tonight—it is obvious that the Government want to find a new way to get local authorities to give up their housing. We have no doubt that the Government will continue to screw down the financial assistance from central Government to local government. There will come a point when all local authorities will not be able to manage their housing. That is precisely what the Government want. At that stage the Government hope that the local authorities will do their job for them and say that they cannot manage any more, but must hand the properties over to someone else. If the Government would come clean and admit that that is what they are doing, there would at least be some honesty in the Bill. There is no honesty in the new clause.
One reason why I object so strongly to the proposal is that we have a Committee system in the House designed to look at legislation in detail, not just at legislation over which there is agreement or disagreement between the parties, but all legislation in a way that enables any Government to avoid some of the pitfalls of the unintended consequences of legislation. We all know that the more superficial the attention that we give to legislation, the greater the risk of mistakes.
New clause 47 is a classic example of a disaster area. What did the Government do? They introduced new clause 47 and surreptitiously slipped out a short 10-page document which deals with the
Large-scale voluntary transfers of local authority housing to private bodies.
It was not given to anyone in advance, not even to me as Opposition spokesman. It was placed in the Vote Office on virtually the same day that the new clause was tabled, almost immediately before Report.
The new document says:
it would be acceptable for the council to enter into contracts with landlords in order to fulfil statutory duties to secure accommodation, primarily for those accepted as homeless.
The local authority will have statutory responsibility not just for the homeless, but for the disabled and certain other groups. However, authorities will no longer have any houses with which to supply those people.
According to the guidance document—this is not in the Bill—local authorities are told that they must continue to fulfil their other statutory responsibilities and do that by entering into a contract with other landlords. However, a problem arises because neither the Bill nor the document tell us anything about what will happen if the landlord says, "I'm sorry, I'm not taking in homeless people." We do not know what will happen if the only landlord who chooses to take in homeless people decides to charge the earth. We are told nothing about what will happen to homeless people who have been taken in for a short period by a landlord. What will happen to them? The local authority has a statutory responsibility for them, but no way of delivering that. All this is being slipped through on Report with the minimum debate.
I believe that the Secretary of State does not even know the answers to the questions that I am posing. I am sure that the Secretary of State has no idea what he will do if only one landlord decides to take homeless or disabled people and then says that he will charge a certain amount of money and people can take it or leave it. The Secretary of State will have no idea what will happen if one landlord accepts people and then says that people will be out after two months. No local authority has received any guidance about that. That is what is so wrong about the proposal in parliamentary terms and why it is suicidal for housing.
10.15 pm
On another page of the guidance notes, there is the statement:
The Secretary of State would normally expect councils to obtain undertakings from the purchaser that he would …normally relet housing which became vacant, at rents set and maintained at levels within the reach of those in lower-paid employment.
One can see what the Government are worried about. They have twigged rather late in the day that there has been a drastic decline in the supply of low-cost rented accommodation in both the private and public sectors. Yet there is only the hope that those organisations to which local authority housing will be transferred will re-let it at rents which those on low incomes can afford. What happens if they do not do so? That question has not been asked in Committee, and the matter has not been subjected to the scrutiny that it would normally receive there.
Conservative Members had better ask themselves that question because, initially, the consequences will hit them much harder than they will hit my hon. Friends, because most Conservative local authorities will he transferring their housing stock. All of a sudden, the Association of


District Councils, which is Tory-dominated, is saying that the situation is crazy. Councils will find themselves trying to deal with the statutory responsibilities of homelessness, and trying to contain the financial aspects of that, while not having a clue how they are supposed to cope with the situation—never mind whether or not they will be helped by the Government.
The local authorities' continuing statutory housing obligations are mentioned on other pages of the guidance notes. Again, there is a reference to local authorities entering into contracts with landlords in respect of section 28 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. That too should worry Conservative Members. The notes comment:
It would be inconsistent with the independence of the new landlord for the council to retain nomination rights.
If the local authority is unable to nominate, what will it do if someone turns up saying, "You have a statutory obligation to house me, and please do so"? Presumably there will be an information officer on duty, because there will be no housing department left. He will have to reply, "Go and see this housing association. If that doesn't work out, we'll try to enter into a contract with a landlord on your behalf." There remains the question where that homeless person is to go in the meantime, and who is to pay for them.
This is a disastrous and stupid new clause, and it is an appalling way of legislating. This is what we mean by legislating on the hoof. It will create a disastrous situation for those local authorities which decide to adopt this course of action. I can understand local authorities under any political control saying, "The Government will drive through their Housing Bill, so we will get rid of our housing stock," and being driven into that trap, although my advice to them is not to panic yet. Although matters are coming to the crunch, we are not at that stage yet.
Local authorities should be looking at ways in which they can meet their statutory responsibilities, nominate, and do other things of that nature. None of those aspects has been addressed or debated in Committee. We have only the Government's single-minded determination to make local authorities give up their housing stock. They will continue to turn the financial screw on councils until they have to give up. When local authorities do so, they will be unable to fulfil their statutory responsibilities without all the risks I have described. As other local housing associations and private organisations fail to make up the difference in the provision of low-cost rented accommodation—the figures show that housing association provision is already frozen and that the private sector is declining very dramatically—there will be a catastrophic housing crisis in this country.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the points the Secretary of State has failed to explain—either here or at Harrogate a week or so ago—is why, in a free-market economy of the kind he advocates, and which the Bill is now releasing, any housing association or private landlord should fix rents for local authority homeless or for anybody else at something below the then market rates?

Mr. Soley: There is no reason why housing associations should want to take that on. The Government have managed to divide the housing association movement, and that is another crisis.
This is an appalling way of legislating, and an insult to the procedures of the House. It will accelerate the decline in the supply of low-cost rented accommodation in this country. As long as that decline continues, there will be an increasing crisis in house-price inflation affecting those who seek to buy.
We strongly object to the new clause. It is ill thought out and ill conceived. It is at best irrelevant to the housing crisis, and, at worst, will make it dramatically worse.

Mr. Robert Key: I welcome Government new clause 47. I am amazed by the blinkered attitude of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I suppose that he is taking every part of the Bill, looking at it in narrow terms and drawing the worst possible conclusion from it. The reality is very different. The new clause will be welcomed in the rural areas where work has been going on for many months on the new housing associations that will take over local authorities' housing role. That is especially true in Salisbury, where we have taken an advanced look at housing in the new Chequer housing association.
I should like to know what my right hon. Friend means by large-scale disposal. He talked about 20,000 houses. My point relates to those local authorities that have always had small municipal housing stocks—in my area about 8,000. I do not think that it would make sense—I hope that he will agree—that when such local authorities hand over their small housing stocks to housing associations, they should be forced to break up a stock of 8,000 into several smaller units simply on grounds of management costs and efficiency. I hope that when my right hon. Friend talks about large-scale disposal as the criterion, he does not mean that just because a small housing stock constitutes 100 per cent. of a local authority's housing stock, he will turn down its application. I hope that he will encourage small housing stocks when they wish to become housing associations.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the Secretary of State confirm that subsection (3) applies the new clause to Scotland and thereby amends the Housing (Scotland) Bill 1987? That will be regarded as incredible by Scots, as it is being done in the context of a housing Bill relating to England and Wales. It is all the more incredible because the Housing (Scotland) Bill is still going through its parliamentary stages and is currently being debated in the other place. In fact, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who has responsibility for it on behalf of the Government in the other place, described the Bill as a purely Scottish measure. It is a major Bill, probably the most important Scottish housing Bill since the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.
Although the Housing (Scotland) Bill has gone through its Commons stages and is now in the middle of its Lords stages, the Government still have not got it right for Scotland. They are having to tag on the back end of a Bill for England and Wales a major new clause affecting the people of Scotland, and that new clause cannot properly be debated by the representatives of the people of Scotland in this place.
I sat through part of our earlier debate on the Bill on the so-called "zombie amendment", when my hon. Friends referred to the rigged ballots, by which the Government will allow large-scale transfers of council housing stock into private ownership. It appeared from that debate that the dead will have more democratic control over housing


than the people of Scotland. Not only are the people of Scotland not able to vote for the Bill, but they are not being given the opportunity to have it properly debated and examined in this Chamber or in any part of Parliament. That is a democratic nonsense and an outrage.
The Government have said that the new clause does not represent a major new Government policy and that it is a response to local authority initiatives. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell us which Scottish local authorities asked for the measure to be applied to Scotland. He should specify them and state whether he is responding to initiatives from Scotland.
New clause 47 does not give new powers to local authorities; it gives significant new powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the disposal by local authorities of their housing stock. The new clause states that the Secretary of State will be able to take into account
the extent … to which 'the intending purchaser' is … dependent upon, controlled by or subject to influence from the local authority".
During the debates on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State for the Environment, clearly said that housing associations would have an important role in taking over control of former local authority housing stock. There is a close relationship between housing associations and local authorities in Scotland—they get on with each other very much better than they get on with the Government. They could probably reach some arrangement to allow for letting policy, for the rights of councils to nominate property, for eviction policies on rent arrears and so on. The new clause gives the Secretary of State for Scotland a veto in such arrangements. He has only to say that he is not satisfied that the housing associations are sufficiently independent of local authorities. That is an important concern with which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland must deal when he replies to the debate.
The proposals are sinister, because new clause 47 provides that the Secretary of State for Scotland can take into account
the terms of the proposed disposal; and … any other matters whatsoever".
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have wide-ranging powers to decide whether he approves of the way in which a local authority disposes of its housing stock to a housing association or some other body. Any arrangements to cover the outstanding capital debt owed by local authorities on their housing could be overriden by the Secretary of State because he will not be satisfied until the last council house is removed from the control of a local authority.
The new clause also states that the Secretary of State
may give directions as to the purpose for which any capital money received by the authority in respect of the disposal is to be applied".
We know that the Government do not want local authorities to spend money on housing. That is proved by a simple statistic—in 1986 Scottish local authorities built only one quarter of the number of houses that they built in 1979. The Government have deliberately imposed policies to prevent local authorities from providing housing. The Secretary of State for Scotland is being given a significant new power. He can direct local authorities how to spend the money from the sale of council houses. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that local authorities could even be asked to contract out provisions for the homeless.
This significant new clause affects housing in Scotland, of which 50 per cent. is still under local authority control. We have not been allowed to debate it properly; it has not been given proper scrutiny, either in this or another place. It is symptomatic of the way that the Government have treated Scotland during the past year—they have written it off. They think that because Scotland did not vote for them they can forget about it until the next election. The unity of the United Kingdom is under threat not because of the Scottish National party or the Opposition, but because of the Government's activities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the Secretary of State for not being present at the beginning of his speech. It was the first time that I had left the Chamber since 3.30 pm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."] I am not asking for sympathy.
I wish to make a few brief points about new clause 30. We must be reassured that the rents will be affordable and judged regionally. I do not know whether the Secretary of State has yet accepted the need for a regional system for adjudicating what is affordable. Any such system and any guidance from the Housing Corporation must take into account the enormous regional variations, which must be specifically reflected in the rents.
Secondly, the danger of new clause 30 is that it merely enhances the powers of the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation will become a monster quango and it is perhaps not premature to press the Secretary of State to say whether he is to move towards devolution of power within the Housing Corporation in England, as indicated by the Minister of State in the press briefing last week. It has already been announced that the Housing Corporation in Wales is to be devolved to Tai Cymru, and rightly so. Unless there is to be a huge quango, the same should happen in England.
10.30 pm
My third point on new clause 30 has not been adequately dealt with so far. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some idea of his thinking on special needs issues, which clearly will have to be covered within the remit of new clause 30. A consultation paper on hostel deficit grant has long been promised. It was foreshadowed in consultation papers at the end of the last year, but it still has not seen the light of day. I wish to press the Secretary of State with some urgency for that consultation paper to be made available soon and for the new grant to be extended to self-contained housing. People working in that sector seek assurances that the budget for special needs housing grant, as it is to be called, will meet not only existing needs and schemes but future developments, as one of the key areas of acute need is clearly special need. Among all the categories, especially of the single homeless and the single vulnerable, those with special needs are perhaps the most in need of protection under the clause.
Assurances were given in Committee that 100 per cent. housing association grant for special needs housing would be retained, but there has been no clarification of whether it applies to self-contained special needs housing as well as to shared housing. I therefore seek clarification of that important point, which affects a large number of people. As I understand it, the Department of the Environment now has two proposals for housing association funding —either block grant to be used in conjunction with private finance, or risk-sharing between the Housing Corporation and the housing association—but so far there have been no proposals for a third procedure of 100 per cent. housing association grant. The housing association movement has been arguing strongly for this, and a specific pool of 100 per cent. HAG earmarked for special needs housing is earnestly sought.
A matter that was raised briefly at an earlier stage was whether the Government had yet responded to the proposals for a housing association licence. Ministers will be aware that in special needs cases a tenancy is not usually the most appropriate form of occupation, a licence being generally more suitable.
Clarification is also needed on the subject of nominations, which was raised at the beginning of the debate. We need a guaranteed procedure for special nominations in relation to move-on housing for people coming out of short-term housing—for example, people rescued from complete homelessness such as those whom I saw at the Thames Reach hostels the other day—who may not stay in the accommodation for very long.
With regard to new clause 47, I do not oppose the principle of housing being devolved from a local authority to other agencies, as is being contemplated in Salisbury. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will be aware that those proposals have received some attention in the press. An article by Rosalind Bayley in the April edition of Housing bore the headline:
Salisbury District Council joins the housing association movement".
Two things have come out of that. First, rents are likely to rise. Secondly, and more importantly, the biggest unknown is the tenants themselves. In Salisbury, in Rochford, and now in Gloucester and everywhere else, the great fear stems from the fact that in most cases there has so far been no consultation whatever with the tenants.
The House must therefore seek an assurance—to be passed on to council tenants, especially in areas of Conservative control—that there will be a proper voting system in this case and not just a veto. If whole-stock transfers of thousands of council properties are to take place, it is vital that there should be full consultation with tenants and full communication of ideas between local authorities and tenants at all stages and that things do not happen in secret. In Rochford there were some nasty goings on in which the people running the council set up their friends to run housing associations which they had set up. The who-you-know idea of handing over into a self-perpetuating oligarchy without consultation with tenants and which is independent of the council is entirely unacceptable.
I certainly approve of transferring to different agencies, if the tenants agree. But tenants must be consulted throughout the process and there must be a positive vote, in which the majority of tenants approve of what is being put to them.

Mr. Key: If what the hon. Gentleman said were true I would join him, but I must say that in Salisbury and other district councils there has been a great deal of publicity, and I can reassure him that in Salisbury the policy was agreed between the political parties on the council.

Mr. Hughes: I said explicitly that I do not oppose the idea, if it is what the local authority wants and if it is done in consultation with tenants who vote that it should happen. That is a proper way to take a local decision about the management of local housing stock. It is necessary that there is proper consultation and a fair voting decision. Only if those guarantees are written in can we be assured that we, in the House of Commons, are providing a fair, democratic system for the moving from one authority to another of the council housing in England and Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): rose——

Mr. John Maxton: I apologise to the Minister, who is not going to get away quite as easily as he thought.
I join my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) in objecting very strongly to the way in which the Scottish Office and Scottish Ministers have been party to the new clause in what is essentially an English and Welsh Bill. It is typical of the Government's arrogance and the contempt with which they treat Scotland, despite their overwhelming rejection by the people of Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, that leads to such great pressures and tensions in Scotland, that, if the Government are not careful, they, the party of the union, may well be the party that breaks up that union. They must learn to treat Scotland as part of the democratic unit of the United Kingdom and accept the will of the Scottish people.
Why have the Government introduced this new clause into this English Bill at such a very late stage? In a letter written by J. S. B. Martin, assistant secretary at the Scottish Development Department, to chief executives of district and island councils, he said:
The new clause, which will also apply to England and Wales, appears in the (Great Britain) Housing Bill, rather than in the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, as the latter has already reached an advanced stage of consideration in Parliament.
That is a new concept. I have never heard of the (Great Britain) Housing Bill.

Mr. William McKelvey: What about Ireland?

Mr. Maxton: I have to say to my hon. Friend that Great Britain does not include Ireland.
The Housing (Scotland) Bill has not reached an advanced stage of consideration in Parliament. The Housing (Scotland) Bill has received its Second reading in the other place and has been committed to a Committee. As far as I am aware, that Committee has not met, so the Government have plenty of opportunities to table any amendments relating to Scotland in the other place, which, if passed by the other place, would come back here for debate when the Housing (Scotland) Bill comes back. Of course we would take the opportunity to debate it.
So why have the Government done it? It is obvious. Having introduced rather generalised powers, they will table further amendments in the House of Lords to the clause when it has been included in the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The Government will take greater powers. I do not understand why the Government could not introduce the whole thing in the other place as one amendment. They have made a complete mess of the whole thing.
There are two matterrs in particular that worry Scottish tenants and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. First, we are concerned that the amendments in the other place will give the Secretary of State the powers to impose the same phoney consultation and balloting that will exist in England and Wales. That does not exist at present and will basically mean no consultation with tenants before selling off large blocks of houses.
Yet again, the words that the Government have uttered about introducing choice in Scotland will be seen to be nonsense. The Government are not introducing choice. In fact, there is a lack of choice. Lots of Scottish Special Housing Association and new town tenants in Scotland have said that they want to go to the local authorities. The Government have said, "No way can they do that." That is what the Government mean by choice.
Secondly, for the first time, the Secretary of State will have the power to use the money from sales and direct it as he chooses. Until now, unlike England and Wales, Scottish local authorities have received all the money that has been gained from sales and have been able to use it for housing. Now, the Secretary of State will be able to direct the money, and we find that objectionable.
I disagree marginally with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion): I do not believe that the Minister will direct local authorities to use the money outside housing. He will direct them to use it to improve existing housing stock to make it ready for sale to private companies. Rather than using the money to build sheltered housing, special amenity housing and shelter for those who really need council houses, it will be spent to improve council housing for sale to the private sector—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good idea."]. The Scottish people do not fir nk that it is a good idea. They have consistently rejected the Government, and so they should.
The new clause will do nothing to improve Scottish housing. It is a shabby strategem by the Government. The Minister is not renowned for making a sensible case at the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he will be able to do so on this occasion.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is incorrect in saying that the other place has not yet completed the Committee stage. The Bill has completed its Committee stage and is awaiting Report and Third Reading.
In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) I should say that we are strongly committed to the housing association movement in Scotland and we have given it an extra £40 million in capital investment this year.
Hon. Members have asked, fairly, why the new clause applies to Scotland. We are including Scotland in the scope of the new clause, not through any wish to hide the measure or avoid discussion of it, but for precisely the opposite reason. We want to allow sufficient parliamentary time for the measure to be discussed fully by both Houses. By proceeding in this way, the total time available for consideration of the provision will be substantially longer.
It has been suggested that, with the delay last week in the other place in proceeding with the Report stage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we could introduce amendments there which would give effect to our policy by way of the Scottish Bill. I should like to put it on the record that we intend to bring forward amendments to the provisions before the House. The first will preserve the right to buy for all tenants involved in disposals of this type. The second will require tenants to be consulted, and the majority of tenants to be in favour of disposal, before approval to large-scale disposals can be given.
As the hon. Member for Cathcart acknowledges, these are important amendments. In large-scale disposals, although a majority of tenants would have to be in favour before the Secretary of State could agree to an authority's proposals to dispose of the stock concerned, it is possible that a minority might have to transfer against their will. It is therefore desirable that the rights of those tenants should not be prejudiced, which is why we shall introduce amendments to preserve the right to buy for tenants


involved in large-scale disposals. The housing Acts that apply south of the border already contain such provisions, but the Housing (Scotland) Acts do not.

Mr. Maxton: Why, when the Housing (Scotland) Bill was going through the House, were not the Government aware of that fact, and why did they not introduce their proposal at that time? Why cannot the Government introduce the Scottish provisions in the other place rather than in the Bill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This matter was brought forward because many local authorities in England were interested and made applications. As yet, there have been no applications from Scottish local authorities. The hon. Member for Cathcart should be aware that the district council has made large-scale disposals at Castlemilk to the Scottish Special Housing Association. Many disposals have been made by district councils in favour of co-operatives.
The amendments necessary to preserve the right to buy and to require consultation with tenants could be lengthy and complex. We want to ensure that we get their wording right. The Housing Bill is behind the Housing (Scotland) Bill in its progress through Parliament. We believe that it is right to take extra time to prepare such amendments properly.
The new clause is intended to clarify the Secretary of State's powers under section 12 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Section 13 of that Act says that the Secretary of State may impose such conditions as he thinks just in giving approval. Clarification will be of assistance to local authorities proposing to dispose of stock, to potential purchasers, who will more readily know what the likelihood is of a disposal being allowed, and to the tenant, who will be more aware of the relevant issues. As the Secretary of State has already said, the considerations that will be taken into account are the extent to which the receiving body will be independent of the disposing council, of the extent to which the interested purchaser would become the predominant or substantial owner of housing to let and of the terms of the disposal.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked about receipts from sales. Receipts from the sales of substantial parts of a local authority's housing stock should be used to repay outstanding loan debt of the housing revenue account. There are powers under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to ensure that receipts are used to repay loan debts.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked about the number of applications from Scottish authorities. This is not an immediate matter in Scotland, but it may suddenly arise if a local authority wishes to apply. In those circumstances, we want to ensure that the interests of tenants are properly safeguarded.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister explain why capital receipts must be used to repay loan debts and why local authorities must disregard what everybody in Scotland regards as the priority of getting decent housing and carrying out the repairs programme? The Minister may not be aware that Glasgow suffers from much debt and that 40 per cent. of its income

is spent on repaying loan charges because of the vast home-building programmes necessary to clear the slums and create housing after the second world war. Given that councils such as Glasgow are already spending a vast amount of their income on repaying debt, why do the Government insist that they spend more money on repaying debt rather than dealing with the housing crisis in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer is that, if loan charges were not repaid from receipts, the amount of debt per house would increase significantly, thus pushing rents up, which is not what the hon. Lady wants.
Although few local authorities in Scotland have shown any definite interest in making large-scale disposals of their stock, it will be helpful to them to know where they stand, should they wish to pursue sales of this type. The provisions in the new clause in no way compel local authorities to sell their stock. We are talking about voluntary sales. The Government are sympathetic to the concept of large-scale disposals, provided sales take place on the right terms. The Scottish Development Department has written to all local authorities in Scotland. In the summer, guidelines will be formulated and circulated to local authorities, giving details of the ways in which the Secretary of State will exercise the powers in section 12(7) of the 1987 Act and the new clause.
The guidelines will make it clear that new landlords will be expected to allocate houses to those most in need. They will be expected to give disadvantaged groups special attention. Before approval is given, the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that the receiving landlord is a stable and responsible organisation with a long-term commitment to the provision of rented housing for those who need it. Councils will be expected to obtain undertakings from the purchaser that he would normally relet housing which becomes vacant at rents set and maintained at levels within the reach of those in lower-paid employment.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister said that the Government would be sympathetic to large-scale disposals of housing stock by local authorities. That was not mentioned during the passage of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Lord Sanderson of Bowden repeatedly said that that legislation did not contain a word of compulsion affecting tenants. The Minister has just explained that, in future, with the amendments that will be attached to the new clause, tenants must either accept a majority decision to have a private sector landlord or buy their house. They will not be allowed to remain as local authority tenants or tenants of Scottish Homes if they so desire. By any standard, that is compulsion.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We are talking about voluntary disposal by local authorities. As I said, no Scottish local authorities have come forward, but, if they do, we want to be certain that the powers are clarified so that they know the position. The hon. Gentleman knows that tenants' choice under part III differs from large-scale disposals, with which we are dealing in the context of the new clause.
We shall bring forward amendments at a later stage requiring the Secretary of State to give consent to first subsequent disposals of stock transferred from local


authorities in this way. Such consent would again normally be given only to disposals where the housing continues to be available for rent.
I hope that those points will reassure the House that the new clause does not represent a substantial change in the law. It will ensure that the terms of any disposals approved are right and that tenants' interests are safeguarded.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 172.

Division No. 382]
[10. 53 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Allason, Rupert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gardiner, George


Benyon, W.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gill, Christopher


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grist, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butler, Chris
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chope, Christopher
Heddle, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Holt, Richard


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Critchley, Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Tony
Key, Robert





King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knowles, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Neale, Gerrard
Summerson, Hugo


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neubert, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Thorne, Neil


Paice, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Tracey, Richard


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Portillo, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Price, Sir David
Walden, George


Raffan, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Renton, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Rhodes James, Robert
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion
Widdecombe, Ann


Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wilkinson, John


Ryder, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Woodcock, Mike


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)



Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shersby, Michael
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Buchan, Norman


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cartwright, John


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Crowther, Stan


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, Bob


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam






Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mitchell, Austin (t Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Morley, Elliott


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William


Fraser, John
O'Neill, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Jo


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robertson, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Henderson, Doug
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, Stuart
Sedgemore, Brian


Hood, Jimmy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Clare


Howells, Geraint
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steinberg, Gerry


Kirkwood, Archy
Stott, Roger


Leadbitter, Ted
Straw, Jack


Leighton, Ron
Turner, Dennis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Wall, Pat


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert N.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAllion, John
Wigley, Dafydd


McAvoy, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wilson, Brian


McFall, John
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McLeish, Henry
Worthington, Tony


Madden, Max
Wray, Jimmy


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Frank Hayes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Meacher, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

SUCCESSION TO ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCY BY SPOUSE

`(1) In any case where—

(a) the sole tenant under an assured periodic tenancy dies, and
(b) immediately before the death, the tenant's spouse was occupying the dwelling-house as his or her only or principal home, and

(c) the tenant was not himself a successor, as defined in subsection (2) or subsection (3) below,
then, on the death, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section in the spouse (and, accordingly, does not devolve under the tenant's will or intestacy).

(2) For the purposes of this section, a tenant is a successor in relation to a tenancy if—

(a) the tenancy became vested in him either by virtue of this section or under the will or intestacy of a previous tenant; or
(b) at some time before the tenant's death the tenancy was a joint tenancy held by himself and one or more other persons and, prior to his death, he became the sole tenant by survivorship.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a tenant is also a successor in relation to a tenancy (in this subsection referred to as "the new tenancy") which was granted to him (alone or jointly with others) if—

(a) at some time before the grant of the new tenancy, he was, by virtue of subsection (2) above, a successor in relation to an earlier tenancy of the same or substantially the same dwelling-house as is let under the new tenancy; and
(b) at all times since he became such a successor he has been a tenant (alone or jointly with others) of the dwelling-house which is let under the new tenancy or of a dwelling-house which is substantially the same as that dwelling-house.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person who was living with the tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the tenant's spouse.

(5) If, on the death of the tenant, there is, by virtue of subsection (4) above, more than one person who fulfils the condition in subsection (1)(b) above, such one of them as may be decided by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the county court shall be treated as the tenant's spouse for the purposes of this section.'—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

POWER OF CORPORATION TO PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO TENANTS AFTER DISPOSAL

`(1) This section applies where a house has been disposed of by a disposal falling within section 74(1A) above, and, in relation to a house which has been so disposed of, a "transferred tenant" means a tenant of it who either—

(a) was the secure tenant of the house immediately before the disposal; or
(b) is the widow or widower of the person who was then the secure tenant of it.

(2) On an application by a transferred tenant of a house who is a party or a prospective party to proceedings or prospective proceedings to determine any dispute between himself and the person who acquired the house on the disposal referred to in subsection (1) above, the Corporation may give assistance to the transferred tenant if it thinks fit to do so—

(a) on the ground that the case raises a question of principle; or
(b) on the ground that it is unreasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case, or to any other matter, to expect the transferred tenant to deal with it without assistance; or
(c) by reason of any other special consideration.

(3) Assistance given by the Corporation under this section may include—

(a) giving advice;
(b) procuring or attempting to procure the settlement of the matter in dispute;
(c) arranging for the giving of advice or assistance by a solicitor or counsel;
(d) arranging for representation by a solicitor or counsel, including such assistance as is usually given by a solicitor or counsel in the steps preliminary or


incidental to any proceedings, or in arriving at or giving effect to a compromise to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings; and
(e) any other form of assistance which the Corporation may consider appropriate;
but paragraph (d) above does not affect the law and practice regulating the descriptions of persons who may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings.

(4) In so far as expenses are incurred by the Corporation in providing a transferred tenant with assistance under this section, the recovery of those expenses (as taxed or assessed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of court) shall constitute a first charge for the benefit of the Corporation—

(a) on any costs which (whether by virtue of a judgment or order of a court or an agreement or otherwise) are payable to the tenant by any other person in respect of the matter in connection with which the assistance was given, and
(b) so far as relates to any costs, on his rights under any compromise or settlement arrived at in connection with that matter to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings;
but subject to any charge under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and to any provision of that Act for payment of any sum to the Legal Aid Board.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

POWER OF CORPORATION TO PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO TENANTS IN RELATION TO ACQUISITIONS

`(1) On an application by the tenant of a dwelling-house who is a party or a prospective party to proceedings falling within subsection (2) below, the Corporation may give assistance to the tenant if it thinks fit to do so—

(a) on the ground that the case raises a question of principle; or
(b) on the ground that it is unreasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case, or to any other matter, to expect the tenant to deal with it without assistance; or
(c) by reason of any other special consideration.

(2) The proceedings referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) proceedings to determine any question arising in relation to an acquisition or proposed acquisition under this Part; and
(b) proceedings to determine any dispute arising after an acquisition under this Part between a transferred tenant of a dwelling-house included in the acquisition and the body by which the acquisition was made;
and for the purposes of paragraph (b) above a tenant of a dwelling-house is a transferred tenant of it if he was the qualifying tenant of it at the time of the acquisition or is the widow or widower of the person who was then the qualifying tenant of it.

(3) Assistance given by the Corporation under this section may include—

(a) giving advice;
(b) procuring or attempting to procure the settlement of the matter in dispute;
(c) arranging for the giving of advice or assistance by a solicitor or counsel;
(d) arranging for representation by a solicitor or counsel, including such assistance as is usually given by a solicitor or counsel in the steps preliminary or incidental to any proceedings, or in arriving at or giving effect to a compromise to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings; and
(e) any other form of assistance which the Corporation may consider appropriate;
but paragraph (d) above does not affect the law and practice regulating the descriptions of persons who may appear in, conduct, defend and address the court in any proceedings.

(4) In so far as expenses are incurred by the Corporation in providing the tenant with assistance under this section, the

recovery of those expenses (as taxed or assessed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules of court) shall constitute a first charge for the benefit of the Corporation—

(a) on any costs which (whether by virtue of a judgement or order of a court or an agreement or otherwise) are payable to the tenant by any other person in respect of the matter in connection with which the assistance was given; and
(b) so far as relates to any costs, on his rights under any compromise or settlement arrived at in connection with that matter to avoid or bring to an end any proceedings;
but subject to any charge under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and to any provision of that Act for payment of any sum to the Legal Aid Board!.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

SERVICE OF INFORMATION, ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

`(1) The Corporation may provide in connection with Part IV a service of information, advice and assistance to, and for the benefit of,—

(a) persons who have been approved or are considering applying for approval under section 87 above; and
(b) persons who are tenants of public sector landlords.

(2) The Corporation may make charges for information, advice and assistance provided under this section otherwise than to persons falling within subsection (1)(b) above.

(3) The powers conferred on the Corporation by this section may be exercised by the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales acting jointly.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47

CONSENTS TO DISPOSALS OF HOUSING STOCK AND APPLICATION OF RECEIPTS

`(1) At the end of subsection (4) of section 34 of the Housing Act 1985 (consent to disposals of land held for the purposes of Part II—provision of housing accommodation) and at the end of subsection (4) of section 43 of that Act (consent for certain disposals of other houses) there shall he inserted the subsections set out in subsection (2) below.

(2) The subsections referred to in subsection (1) above and subsection (3) below are as follows—
(4A) The matters to which the Secretary of State may have regard in determining whether to give consent and, if so, to what conditions consent should be subject shall include—

(a) the extent (if any) to which the person to whom the proposed disposal is to be made (in this subsection referred to as "the intending purchaser") is, or is likely to be, dependent upon, controlled by or subject to influence from the local authority making the disposal or any members or officers of that authority;
(b) the extent (if any) to which the proposed disposal would result in the intending purchaser becoming the predominant or a substantial owner in any area of housing accommodation let on tenancies or subject to licences;
(c) the terms of the proposed disposal; and
(d) any other matters whatsoever which he considers relevant.
(4B) Where the Secretary of State gives consent to a disposal by a local authority, he may give directions as to the purpose for which any capital money received by the authority in respect of the disposal is to be applied and, where any such directions are given, nothing in any enactment shall


require his consent to be given for the application of the capital money concerned in accordance with the directions.

(3) Section 13 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (power of Secretary of State to impose conditions in sale of local authority houses) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and after that subsection there shall be inserted as subsections (2) and (3) the subsections which are set out in subsection (2) above and there numbered (4A) and (4B).

(4) In section 153 of the Local Government Act 1972 (application of capital money on disposal of land), in subsection (1) after the words "127(4) above" there shall be be inserted "to any directions given in respect of the disposal under section 43(4B) of the Housing Act 1985".

(5) In section 430 of the Housing Act 1985 (application of capital money received on disposal of land), in subsection (1) after the word "applied", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be inserted "in accordance with any directions given in respect of the disposal under section 34(4B) or section 43(4B) and, subject thereto".

(6) In section 208 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (application of receipts from disposal of certain land), in subsection (2) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or has made directions under section 13(3)".

(7) In section 26 of the Local Government Act 1988 (provisions as to consents under section 25 for provision of financial assistance etc.), in subsection (5) (which excludes consent under various enactments where consent is given to a disposal of land under section 25) after the words "such a consent" there shall be inserted "then, if the consent given for the purposes of section 25 above so provides".

(8) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 9th June 1988.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to
the Bill.

New Clause 48

SCHEMES FOR PAYMENTS TO ASSIST LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TENANTS TO OBTAIN OTHER ACCOMMODATION

`(1) In accordance with a scheme made by a local housing authority and approved by the Secretary of State under this section, the authority may make grants to or for the benefit of qualifying tenants or licensees of the authority with a view to assisting each person to whom or for whose benefit a grant is made to obtain accommodation otherwise than as a tenant or licensee of the authority either—

(a) by acquiring an interest in a dwelling-house; or
(b) by carrying out works to a dwelling-house to provide additional accommodation; or
(c) by both of those means.

(2) A scheme under this section shall contain such provisions as the local housing authority considers appropriate together with any which the Secretary of State may require as a condition of his approval and, without prejudice to the generality, a scheme may include provisions specifying, or providing for the determination of—

(a) the persons who are qualifying tenants or licensees for the purposes of the scheme;
(b) the interests which qualifying tenants or licensees may be assisted to acquire;
(c) the works for the carrying out of which grants may be made;
(d) the circumstances in which a grant may be made for the benefit of a qualifying tenant or licensee;
(e) the amount of the grant which may be made in any particular case and the terms on which it may be made;
(f) the limits on the total number and amount of grants which may be made; and
(g) the period within which the scheme is to apply.

(3) The Secretary of State may approve a scheme made by a local housing authority under this section with or without conditions and, where a scheme has been approved, the authority shall take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the scheme to the attention of persons likely to be able

to benefit from it and shall take such other steps (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct in any particular case to secure publicity for the scheme.

(4) The Secretary of State may revoke an approval of a scheme under this section by a notice given to the local housing authority concerned; and where such a notice is given, the revocation shall not affect the operation of the scheme in relation to any grants made or agreed before the date of the notice.

(5) Any grant made pursuant to a scheme under this section—

(a) shall be regarded as a grant of a capital nature for the purposes of Part VIII of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Capital expenditure of local authorities); and
(b) shall be regarded as expenditure on management for the purposes of Part II of Schedule 14 to the Housing Act 1985 (debits to the Housing Revenue Account).

(6) Where a scheme made by a local housing authority under this section has been approved, a person dealing with the authority shall not be concerned to see or enquire whether the terms of the scheme have been or are being complied with, and any failure to comply with the terms of a scheme shall not invalidate any grant purporting to be made in accordance with the scheme unless the person to whom the grant is made has actual notice of the failure.

(7) In this section—

(a) "local housing authority" has the meaning assigned by section 1 of the Housing Act 1985;
(b) "dwelling-house" has the meaning assigned by section 112 of that Act; and
(c) "tenant" does not include a tenant under a long tenancy, as defined in section 115 of that Act.'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

RESTRICTION ON LETTING ETC, OF CERTAIN HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS ETC.

`(1) Section 37 of the Housing Act 1985 (restriction on disposals of dwelling-houses in National Parks etc.) shall be amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In subsection (2) (the covenanted limitation) after the word "his" there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end there shall be added "and

(b) there will be no disposal by way of tenancy or licence without the written consent of the authority unless the disposal is to a person satisfying that condition".

(3) In subsection (3) (disposals limited to persons employed or living locally) after the words "application for consent" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a disposal by way of tenancy or licence, preceding the disposal".

(4) at the end of subsection (4) (disposals in breach of covenant to be void) there shall be added "and, so far as it relates to disposals by way of tenancy or licence, such a covenant may be enforced by the local authority as if—

(a) the authority were possessed of land adjacent to the house concerned; and
(b) the covenant were expressed to be made for the benefit of such adjacent land."

(5) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(4A) Any reference in the preceding provisions of this section to a disposal by way of tenancy or licence does not include a reference to a relevant disposal or an exempted disposal.

(6) This section has effect where the conveyance, grant or assignment referred to in subsection (1) of section 37 is executed on or after the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment (a) to the
new clause, at end add—
`(8) The limitation on disposal in subsection (2)(b) shall not apply if and so long as the House remains the only or main residence of the purchaser (including any successor in title of his and any person deeming title for him or such a successor).
(9) in this section the words "only or main residence" shall have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Finance Act 1965.'.

New clause 5—Restriction on disposal of dwellinghouses in National Parks etc. acquired under the right to buy—
`(1) In Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (the right to buy), section 157 (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks etc.) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In subsection (2) (the covenanted limitation) after the word "his" there shall be inserted "a" and at the end there shall be added "and—

(b) there will be no disposal by way of tenancy or licence without the written consent of the landlord unless the disposal is to a person satisfying that condition".
(3) In subsection (3) (disposals limited to persons employed or living locally) after the words "application for consent" there shall he inserted the words "or, in the case of a disposal by way of tenancy or licence, preceding the disposal".
(4) In subsection (4) (alternative limitation giving landlord right to a reconveyance) after the words "relevant disposal" there shall be inserted "or disposal by way of tenancy or licence".
(5) At the end of subsection (6) (disposals in breach of covenant to be void) there shall be added "and, so far as it relates to disposals by way of tenancy or licence, such a covenant may be enforced by the landlord as if—

(a) the landlord were possessed of land adjacent to the house concerned; and
(b) the covenant were expressed to be made for the benefit of such adjacent land.".
(6) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) Any reference in the preceding provisions of this section to a disposal by way of tenancy or licence does not include a reference to a relevant disposal or an exempted disposal.".
(7) This section has effect where the conveyance or grant referred to in subsection (1) of section 157 is executed on or after the passing of this Act.'.

Amendment (a) to new clause 5, at end Add—
'(8) The limitation on disposal in subsection (2)(b) shall not apply if and so long as the house remains the only or main residence of the purchaser (including any successor in title of his and any person deeming title for him or such a successor).
(9) In this section the words "only or main residence" shall have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Finance Act 1965.'.

Mr. Jopling: New clause 4 has been supported, I am glad to say, by about 65 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am grateful for their support of my efforts to get this change in the law. Many of my hon. Friends have supported this proposal because they come predominantly from rural areas, and their anxiety stems from the concern and pressure in their constituencies, where people are concerned about rural housing. Many hon. Members with rural constituencies are accustomed to hearing from their constituents that in such areas, particularly the beautiful national parks, the areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of great scenic beauty, housing is becoming increasingly unavailable, and that the prices are increasingly inflated, entirely because of the outside pressure for weekend houses and holiday homes.
For example, in correspondence, the Lake District planning board has told me:
In the central parishes of the Lake District, second and holiday-home occupancy of existing dwellings has reached levels as high as 40 per cent. of the existing housing stock and the financial inducements to let for the holiday market are strong.
As the House will recall, this is not a new problem. That problem was clearly recognised in the right-to-buy legislation which passed through the House in 1980 and was further consolidated in the 1985 legislation. At that time, Parliament decided to take steps to ensure that council houses, having been bought by the tenant under the right-to-buy arrangements, were protected from becoming holiday or weekend homes. That proposal has the support of many of my hon. Friends. As a consequence, in the 1985 Act, two alternative restrictive covenants were allowed for local authorities to put into sale agreements to ensure that, when the former tenant wished to resell the house, it remained in local ownership.
That is what the House wanted and what I wanted, but an anomaly has now emerged, that there is nothing to stop the owner of the former council house letting it as a weekend or holiday home, rather than selling it. That could drive a coach and horses through Parliament's wise decision a few years ago to seek to ensure that former council housing remained in local occupancy.
My new clauses are designed to close that loophole. Their intention is the reason why so many of my hon. Friends have flocked to support them. I hope that the Government will be able to support the new clauses. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whom I am glad to see here, has put down an amendment to each of my new clauses. Those amendments are entirely acceptable to me, as I understand that they seek to say that the restriction that I am proposing will not apply if the house is the principal residence of the owner. I hope that the Government will find that my hon. Friend's amendments make the new clauses even easier to accept.
My intention is solely to prevent the owner of a former council house from leaving the house, buying or renting another to live in and then letting the original council house at a substantial rate which could well cover the mortgage payments on both houses. That was never Parliament's intention and we should change the law to ensure that the loophole does not occur.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My two amendments refer to the new clauses moved so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). He has already given the reason for those refinements to his new clauses, which are in no sense hostile amendments, and I recommend them to the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I strongly support this proposal, because I represent an area that has problems similar to those of the Lake District. They are not only problems in rural Wales and the Lake District, but in East Anglia, Cornwall and many other areas where tremendous pressures are put on the limited housing stock and make it extremely difficult for local people to obtain housing.
The loophole to which the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) referred is open to exploitation in many areas and I hope that the


Government will show that they are willing to accept the amendment. The proposal goes only part of the way to try to mitigate the considerable problems that face people in the right hon. Gentleman's area and in mine. The policy of any Government must be to try to ensure that local people can have some sort of command over the housing stock. The proposal at least deals with the sub-letting of houses that have been sold and, to that extent, is welcome.
I hope that the Government will address themselves to the generality of the problem, because it is certainly becoming worse. A cheque-book invasion in the area which I represent is making it next to impossible for local people to acquire houses to buy. The reduction of the housing stock is making it increasingly difficult to find houses to rent. There must be a mechanism that will provide an answer to the problem, and I urge the Government to give serious consideration to finding it before the problem gets out of hand.

Mr. Ridley: It might help the House and assist the conduct of business if I were to ask the House to take yes for an answer to the new clause. I know that it is a terrible thing to ask the House to do, but for once it might bear with me if I say that we accept the new clauses of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). We shall accept also the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) to them. I fear, however, that in another place it will be necessary to amend the amendments while leaving the sense exactly as he would have them. The addition of "only or main residence" which he proposes has been taken from an Act which has been repealed. I do not think that we can leave that.
Secondly, the amendment to new clause 5 would not affect the operation of the clause in those instances where the landlord has reserved a right to pre-emption. Thus, it would mean that before any letting, however short, the owner of the house would have to give the former landlord the opportunity to buy it back. I do not think that that would be right. Subject to introducing those amendments in another place, the Government are happy to accept the new clauses and the sense of the amendments to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment made: (a) in line 26, at end add—
`(8) The limitation on disposal in subsection (2)(b) shall not apply if and so long as the house remains the only or main residence of the purchaser (including any successor in title of his and any person deeming title for him or such a successor).
(9) In this section the words "only or main residence" shall have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Finance Act 1965.'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 5

RESTRICTION ON DISPOSAL OF DWELLING-HOUSES IN NATIONAL PARKS ETC. ACQUIRED UNDER THE RIGHT TO BUY

'(1) In Part V of the Housing Act 1985 (the right to buy), section 157 (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks etc.) shall be amended in accordance with this section.

(2) In subsection (2) (the covenanted limitation) after the word "his" there shall be inserted "a" and at the end there shall be added "and—

(b) there will be no disposal by way of tenancy or licence without the written consent of the landlord unless the disposal is to a person satisfying that condition".
(3) In subsection (3) (disposals limited to persons employed or living locally) after the words "application for consent" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a disposal by way of tenancy or licence, preceding the disposal".
(4) In subsection (4) (alternative limitation giving landlord right to a reconveyance) after the words "relevant disposal" there shall be inserted "or disposal by way of tenancy or licence".
(5) At the end of subsection (6) (disposals in breach of covenant to be void) there shall be added "and, so far as it relates to disposals by way of tenancy or licence, such a covenant may be enforced by the landlord as if—

(a) the landlord were possessed of land adjacent to the house concerned; and
(b) the covenant were expressed to be made for the benefit of such adjacent land.".
(6) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) Any reference in the preceding provisions of this section to a disposal by way of tenancy or licence does not include a reference to a relevant disposal or an exempted disposal.".
(7) This section has effect where the conveyance or grant referred to in subsection (1) of section 157 is executed on or after the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Amendment made: (a) in line 26, at end add—
`(8) The limitation on disposal in subsection (2)(b) shall not apply if and so long as the house remains the only or main residence of the purchaser (including any successor in title of his and any person deeming title for him or such a successor).
(9) in this section the words "only or main residence" shall have the same meaning as in section 29 of the Finance Act 1965.'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9

GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION: RACIAL HARASSMENT

`In Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (grounds for possession of dwelling-houses let under secure tenancies) in Part I (grounds of which court may order possession if it considers it reasonable), at the end of Ground 2 (nuisance or annoyance to neighbours) add—
or has committed acts on racial grounds against a person or persons of a different racial or ethnic origin residing within the local authority area within which the dwelling-house is located, and those acts have interfered with that person's enjoyment of the dwelling-house or have been calculated to deter the person from occupying a particular dwellinghouse.".'.—[Mr. Tony Banks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 43—Grounds for possession: harassment—
'In Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 (grounds for possession of dwelling-houses let under secure tenancies) in Part I (grounds of which court may order possession if it considers it reasonable), at the end of Ground 2 (nuisance or annoyance to neighbours) add—
or has committed acts against a person or persons residing within the local authority area within which the dwelling-house is located, and those acts have interfered with that person's enjoyment of the dwelling-house or have been calculated to deter the person from occupying a particular dwelling-house.".'.

New clause 15—Officer to deal with harassment and illegal eviction—
'(1) All local housing authorities to which this section applies, shall appoint and retain a proper officer, whose functions shall include those set out in subsection (3) below.
(2) This section applies to the following local housing authorities—

(i) district councils and London borough councils.
(ii) The Common Council of the City of London.
(iii) The Council of the Isles of Scilly.
(3) The proper officer for the purposes of subsection (1) above, shall investigate any complaint made to the local housing authority, by a person aggrieved, that an offence under this Part of this Act or under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as amended has been committed within the area of that authority and shall prepare a recommendation in writing for that authority on whether or not that authority shall commence a prosecution or other action against any person arising from these investigations.
(4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby confirmed that a person aggrieved under subsection (3) above shall have a sufficient interest in the matter to bring appropriate proceedings to enforce the duties established under this section.'.

Mr. Banks: The new clauses all touch upon racial harassment. New clause 9 relates to schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985, which sets out the grounds on which a public sector landlord can recover possession against a tenant. I am more than happy to move the new clause, but I wish that there were no need for me to do so. Racial harassment is one of the evils that unfortunately now permeates much of our society, especially within the inner cities. The boroughs of Newham—which is my part of the east end—and Tower Hamlets have found that the problem has reached crisis proportions. I am glad to be able to report that the London borough of Newham has taken a national lead in attempting to combat racial harassment, and the first case of a tenant being convicted on the ground of racial harassment occurred in the borough.
Newham commissioned a report from the Harris Research Centre as part of a crime survey. The survey examined a sample of Asian and Afro-Caribbean residents to determine their experiences and attitudes about racial harassment. A normal sample size of 1,063 people was taken and the findings were very disturbing. It showed that one in four of Newham's black residents had been victims of some form of racial harassment in the previous 12 months. Two in three victims of racial harassment were victims on more than one occasion and 116 victims reported 1.550 incidents of racial harassment. It is really worrying that it appears that only one in 20 incidents were actually reported to the police. When they were reported, 80 per cent. of black victims were dissatisfied with the police handling of the matter. The dissatisfaction largely stemmed from a feeling that the police were apathetic about the problems of black residents.
I am glad to say that, through some very intense discussions with the police, the local authority and community leaders, there has been an undoubtedly successful drive against racial harassment in the east end of London. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I commend all those in the east end who are trying their best to stem the rising tide of unpleasantness about which all of us feel ashamed.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House deplore racial harassment. Although victim support is an essential feature of any racial harassment policy. we must concentrate our efforts on the perpetrators

and the crimes that they commit. We believe that ground for possession is an essential component of that attack on the perpetrators.
The experience of local authorities is that the courts are not willing to evict tenants for racial harassment alone. They have found that a more comprehensive case including a long series of small incidents that are a nuisance or an annoyance is more likely to succeed than a case relying purely on racial harassment. For that reason alone it would be useful for Parliament to send a message to the courts that we intend that racial attacks on tenants or residents should be considered as sufficient grounds for possession. I hope that the Minister will he able to join me in sending that message out very clearly by accepting new clause 9.
New clause 15 seeks to give teeth to the Government's proposals drafted to give effect to their manifesto promise to strengthen the law against harassment and unlawful eviction. Here is a case in which the Opposition are only too happy to try to strengthen and support a Conservative party manifesto pledge. I am sure that the Minister will welcome that support.
We believe that legal protection is useless without effective enforcement machinery. New clause 15 seeks to ensure that every local housing authority has an officer called a tenancy relations officer or harassment officer who will receive complaints alleging harassment or unlawful eviction. I know that the Minister feels very strongly about these matters and I hope that he will say how delighted he is to accept the Opposition new clauses.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) with new clauses 9 and 15. It is clearly important to ensure that people who are often the minority community are as secure, and feel as secure and protected by the law, as people in the ethnic majority.
One of the most disconcerting and upsetting things that can happen is for people to feel that they are perpetually persecuted even when they are behind their own front doors, in their homes. They know that they can have no escape from that. That has often been remedied only by suggesting that the victims move. It does nothing for good race relations, let alone good education and tolerance in a just and fair society, to suggest that those who are persecuted must get out of the way to allow the bullies to continue to bully. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the new clauses.
New clause 43 is in most respects similar to new clause 9, except that it deals with harassment generally, as opposed only to racial harassment. I can illustrate my point with one short tale. There was living in my constituency about one and one half years ago a lady of 79, who found that there were illegal occupants in the flat above hers. They were a large family of travellers and they lived an extremely unruly life. As the days went by, she felt herself increasingly persecuted and intimidated by them.
They caused a din all the time and she found that she could not sleep. They often damaged her property and the surrounding area and were generally a nuisance to the community. The sad truth is that six months after they moved in, she died. I can testify to the fact that, having been a strong, healthy and robust pensioner, she was forced to her grave by being harassed to death. That was not a question of racial harassment, because the family concerned was the same colour as she was. There might


have been a slight racial difference in that they were first generation Irish immigrants, but they were white. She was a long-standing local resident of Bermondsey.
Harassment of whatever kind is entirely unacceptable. Normally, a local authority will offer assistance if the victim takes the matter to court. In reality, a pensioner of 79 is in no fit state to take the part of the principal moving against others who cause harassment. It is vital that tenants in that predicament are secure in the knowledge that their landlord will uphold their rights and will meet his obligations to his tenants, in ensuring that they have quiet enjoyment of their tenancies.

Mr. David Alton: I agree with my hon. Friend, but does he not acknowledge that the problem is compounded and accentuated by the number of people who, through the care in the community programme, have been dumped in places where vulnerable people already are living?—[Interruption.] In my constituency, there are examples of elderly people having been left in flats and of others having been dumped alongside them without any proper follow-up care. Local allocation committees do not always provide protection from the kind of harassment that my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Hughes: Some hon. Members should have listened more attentively to my hon. Friend's intervention. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has not been here."] My hon. Friend has been in and out of the Chamber throughout the whole of today, and he has voted on all the amendments. He was entitled to make his very valid point.
Those responsible for allocating housing often do so without giving due thought to the consequences for existing neighbourhoods of accommodating people who, through no fault of their own, may not be best placed there. I am sure that all hon. Members have received complaints from constituents who find unacceptable the lifestyle of somebody who may be mentally sick, but who is perfectly entitled to a home. However, such a person should not reasonably be housed together with an elderly couple, who may then find themselves persecuted as a result of that inappropriate allocation.
It is vital that tenants are protected, and it is not good enough that they should be expected to defend their own rights when they are themselves vulnerable and unable to do so. Local authorities must take the responsibility for protecting the quiet enjoyment of all our citizens. The new clauses are intended to achieve that, and I hope that the Government will be responsive to the general problem and to the new clauses in particular.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is nice to welcome several new speakers to our debate. However, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has been present in the Chamber throughout and knows that these issues have been debated on a number of occasions. I join him in sending out from this Chamber the strongest possible message that it is unacceptable to harass people on racial or any other grounds, so making it intolerable for them to use their accommodation. He is right to say that Newham is a borough that has dealt with such matters in a forthright way and has achieved some successes under the

present law. However, as he will know, it has also had some failures under the present law, which is schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985.
The argument between us is whether it is the law that is wrong or, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, the force that is put behind the law and the difficulty in getting people to come forward to give evidence. I am sure that all of us with urban constituencies—this perhaps applies to other constituencies also—will know that getting people to come forward is usually the real problem. Therefore, we would argue that schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1985 provides proper grounds and that, in attaching the right importance to the subject, we must be careful not to go so far that we create a potential new double jeopardy or hazard.
New clause 9 states that any act in the nature of racial harassment in the same local authority area could lead to the loss of a property. Such an act would probably be illegal already, and we should not use eviction as an additional form of punishment. However, eviction is rightly used if it attaches to the neighbour problems and to actions which make the use of the property intolerable.

Mr. Tony Banks: Ground 2 makes racial harassment a nuisance or an annoyance. Obviously, we want to strengthen that and to go all the way by saying that it is an out-and-out crime. When local authorities try to get possession on ground 2, the courts tend not to be prepared to accept racial harassment alone but want other evidence.

Mr. Waldegrave: In the hon. Gentleman's own borough, as well as in Camden and Islington, there have been successes on that ground in such cases. Cases that have failed may have failed not because of any lack in the law, but because of the difficulty of collecting evidence. That is why—I hope that this will help the hon. Gentleman—my Department has recently commissioned some research from Brunel university to look into such matters and to see whether that is the problem or whether we, or experts, can help in giving guidance to local authorities to make such cases stick better.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If the research from Brunel university shows that there is a need for further legislation in this area, will the Minister undertake that he will be prepared to bring that forward?

Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot guarantee that, but we will take seriously anything that the report, which we have commissioned, recommends. It will be published in the normal way.
I do not want to go as far as new clause 9 or new clause 43 and to lay on local authorities in every circumstance a duty to employ tenancy relations officers. Tenancy relations officers have written to us all to urge that, and I can understand why they did so. I should like to put on record my gratitude for the help that they have given in formulating several of the proposals in the Bill. I do not think that we should lay down the way in which local authorities should carry out their statutory duties, because the range of problems facing local authorities in this area is so great. However, I think that all the authorities with which we would deal would naturally employ tenancy relations officers.
On the basis that there is no argument between us, as there is further work in hand and because there have been some successful prosecutions under the present laws, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not press their new clauses.

Mr. Boateng: I had hoped not to have to contribute to this part of the debate, but I am concerned by one aspect of the Secretary of State's response. He seems to show undue equanimity about the state of the existing law in relation to harassment, which is not borne out by the research that has already been carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality. I fail to see the need to go to Brunel university to establish what the commission, together with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, has already established—which is that one of the major causes of difficulty in prosecuting cases of racial harassment is that people are not prepared to come forward to give evidence because they simply do not believe that the law will be effective.
The CRE report "Living in Terror", which highlights the real problems currently faced by communities throughout the country, states:
It is important to point out the difficulty of proving cases some months after the incident concerned. There is a tendency by the courts to award suspended orders rather than outright possession and individuals are dissuaded from appearing in court because of its relative ineffectiveness.
That is what the Government's own body, the CRE, had to say about that matter.
Why is it now necessary to go to Brunel? What comfort will the Minister's words bring to the Bengali, Afro-Caribbean and Asian families in our cities, who every night go in fear of what may happen to them during the night? Wives and children dare not go out to shop or to school because of the level of harassment on the major estates. What comfort can the Minister give to them? To say that Brunel is carrying out research will not make them sleep any easier in their beds or enable them to lead a full life as equal members of our community.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 39

LIMITATION OF ASSURED TENANCIES TO PREVIOUSLY EMPTY PROPERTY

`A tenancy is an assured tenancy within the meaning of this Act if—

(a) the letting is or forms part of a building which at the time of the commencement of this Act was empty and had remained empty for a period of more than six months; and
(b) the landlord has obtained from the local authority a licence authorising the building or part of a building as fit to be let.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Even at this late stage, we hope to persuade the Government to proceed slightly more carefully in the deregulation of the private sector. They legislated for a new form of assured tenancy in 1980, and our new clause would allow such tenancies in the new deregulated regime that the Government so favour, but would limit them to property that was previously empty.
The problem with the Bill is that, no matter what sort of property, once someone takes a new tenancy he will not have the same security as he enjoyed previously. He cannot carry his security with him. He will move to a regime where

his rights are fewer and his rent greater. He will have no facility to seek regulation of that rent because the fair rent system will disappear. He will be paying market rent and, if not in receipt of benefit, will be substantially financially disadvantaged.
We are bringing to the House a matter that we argued in Committee. We want to ensure that, rather than the Government taking a shot in the dark and arguing the theory that deregulation will solve the housing problem, they take a more common-sense approach. The Government have identified empty properties in the private sector that might be held back from the market because only the market will give the landlord the revenue that the landlord requires. However, no such argument applies to other properties. Property currently let in the private sector does not suddenly need the benefit of deregulated market rents and fewer rights for tenants. That property is already let. The Government should not suddenly sweep away all the present structures and introduce all the uncertainty of the future.
The greatest concern of tenants is that they have secure homes at rents that they can afford. The new clause would ensure that the security of thousands, possibly millions, of tenants is not put at risk because many of the new homes that become available are priced out of the market for all but a handful of people.

Mr. Winnick: The new clause would give at least some protection to the many thousands of people now in secure rented dwellings in the private sector. The Bill states that they will continue to be protected, but we know that Rachmanism arose because Mr. Rachman and other undesirable and unscrupulous landlords were aware that, under the Rent Act 1957, once the tenants were out, the places could be relet with no control whatever.
The ITV "World in Action" programme today dealt with the notorious activities of Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten, who describes his tenants as "scumbags", admits to spitting at them and makes no secret of the fact that he would use any method whatever—violence, gangsterism and the rest—to get rid of them. He described the Bill as a step in the right direction, and it will greatly assist people of that type.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is absolutely right: if there is to be real security—not just on paper, but real and effective security—for existing private tenants, the most effective way to achieve it within the framework of this undesirable Bill is through the provision in the new clause that assured tenancies will arise only when the property has been empty for six months.
If the Minister seriously wished to ensure that private tenants were protected, he would accept the new clause.

Mr. Waldegrave: I need not detain the House long to point out the absurdity of the new clause. The result would be to penalise landlords who have continued to let their property notwithstanding all the constraints and difficulties associated with the Rent Acts, and to reward those who have kept their property off the market. If that is what the House wants, I shall he amazed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may be more greatly amazed that, despite all his promises, the consequence of his legislation will be that the needs of the large number of people looking for decent, cheap rented housing will


remain unmet. The new clause would have been a redeeming feature of the Bill, but the Minister is clearly beyond seeking redemption.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 49

PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO BUY

`(a) Where a secure tenant of a non-fully mutual housing co-operative has claimed to exercise his right to buy, no subsequent change in the rules or status of the co-operative shall have the effect of negating that right to buy.

(b) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st March 1987.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Watts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with a fairly narrow point arising from the problems of my constituent, Mr. J. Croxford, whose right to buy has been denied as a result of retrospective and capricious action by the Northborough housing co-operative, of which Mr. Croxford is a tenant.
In February 1987, Mr. Croxford made a right-to-buy application to the Northborough housing co-operative. In May 1987, the co-operative admitted his right to buy, albeit nine weeks later than it should have done. Mr. Croxford was concerned at the slow progress of his application, and wrote to me on 27 July 1987. He knew that the section 125 notice was due, but suspected that it would not arrive. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, who replied to me at the end of August 1987 based on information supplied to the Department by the housing co-operative.
The co-operative claimed that it had instructed a surveyor to inspect the flat in preparation for the issue of a section 125 notice, but the co-operative's claim that it was progressing the application turned out to be a cynical lie. On 30 March 1987—before admitting Mr. Croxford's right to buy, and before supplying that information to my hon. Friend the Minister—the co-operative had changed its rules and registered as a fully mutual co-operative, thereby depriving all its tenants of their status as secure tenants and of their right to buy.
It was not until 3 February 1988 that the co-operative wrote to my constituent—almost a year from the date of his initial application—advising him that his right to buy had been retrospectively extinguished by the devious action that the co-operative had taken in changing its rules. I wrote again to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. My hon. Friend replied explaining that the action taken by the co-operative appeared to be in accordance with the law, although I submit that it was certainly not within the spirit of the law as enacted by Parliament.
My new clause seeks to remedy the wrong suffered by Mr. Croxford and perhaps by other people in similar circumstances. It renders void any action by a non fully mutual housing co-operative to change its rules or status so as to remove the right to buy from a tenant who was a secure tenant at the time he claimed his right to buy.
I have made the effective date of the new clause 1 March 1987. I realise that there would normally be an objection on the grounds of it being retrospective legislation, but it

is justified in this instance as it is designed to provide a remedy against the retrospective action of the housing co-operative to remove a right which had been conferred by legislation.
11.45 pm
I shall not be surprised if my hon. Friend the Minister finds some technical defect in the drafting of the new clause—indeed, I should be surprised if that were not the case. However, if he cannot accept it, I hope that he will give me an undertaking that he will look again at this problem and consider whether it would be possible to introduce an amendment in another place to remedy the wrong which my constituent has suffered.
I cannot believe that it was the intention of the House, when it created the right to buy, that it should be negated by cavalier retrospective action by a mischievous housing co-operative. The House should stand by the right to buy which it conferred on tenants such as my constituent Mr. Croxford.

Mr. Graham Allen: The right to buy raises a number of very important issues, not least for some 500 or 600 of my constituents who exercised the right to buy and, unfortunately, bought a pup. They bought BISF steel-framed properties. Those properties cannot be sold on, even when willing buyers are found, because building societies do not make mortgages available because of alleged structural defects.
Rather than take up the time of the House any further, when the Minister replies to the debate, either on the new clause or on Third Reading, will he give some comfort and some hope to those people who, under the Conservative right-to-buy policy, are lumbered with houses which are impossible to sell on and which do not qualify for any grant under the structurally defective properties legislation? Will he seek at least to review the case of 500 or 600 of my constituents in Nottingham, North, so that at some point in the future they can either sell their houses or have them brought up to a reasonable standard?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) has been in correspondence with me about the individual case that he mentioned. I am glad to say that the only such case that has come to our attention is the one that he described. The Housing Corporation, which deals with such matters, has also heard of no other such case. I doubt whether it would be wise to legislate on the basis of a single case.
It is not clear to me that it would be right in principle to make the changes which my hon. Friend proposes. A member of a co-operative is bound by its decisions. I understand that the procedure for changing the status of the housing co-operative to fully mutual was correctly followed, including making sure that all the members of the co-operative were aware that by changing from a non fully mutual housing co-operative to a fully mutual one they would lose the right to buy. If there were any doubt About the way the procedures were followed, doubtless recourse to the courts is available. The Housing Corporation, however, has undertaken to ask housing co-operatives when they apply to be registered as fully mutual whether there are any right-to-buy claims outstanding. If there are, the corporation will seek to ensure that they are cleared up satisfactorily and that no tenant who wishes to exercise the right to buy and has claimed it will lose that right.
I do not know whether that will help my hon. Friend with his case, but it will deal with the problem in future, and I hope that he will withdraw the new clause on that basis.

Mr. Watts: On the basis of my hon. Friend's reply, I will he able to get in touch with the Housing Corporation to ascertain the facts of the case.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 13

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 119, line 32, column 3, leave out 'Section 68' and insert—



'Sections 68 and 69'

No. 65, in page 119, line 47, column 3, at end insert—



`Schedule 12.'

No. 251, in page 120, line 17, column 3, at beginning insert—



'In section 3(2) the words "of housing associations maintained under this section".



In section 18(3) the words from "and the Corporation" onwards.'.

No. 66, in page 120, line 51, column 3, at beginning insert—



'Section 7.'

No. 252, in page 120, line 58, column 3, leave out '15 and' insert '14 to'.

No. 253 in page 121, line 28 at end insert—


'1988 c.00.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.
Section 4(4)




Schedule 3.




In Schedule 9, paragraph 5(b).'.




—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 239, in Title, line 3, after '1976', insert—
`to establish a body, Housing for Wales, having functions relating to housing associations'.—[Mr. Waldegrave.]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Mr. Waldegrave: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is one of the most important of the Government's Bills and one with which I am exceedingly proud to be associated—[Interruption.] The normal squeaks and groans of a party being dragged slowly into the latter half of the 20th century are all too clearly audible from Labour Members. We have already noticed the Leader of the Opposition dragging along behind our chariot. He is

already moving. In due course he will take the trouble to explain matters to some of his hon. Friends who listen with their mouths.
Everyone knows that it is a scandal that there are 500,000 or so empty properties in the private sector in Britain and that a large number of the properties are empty because of the workings of the Rent Acts, one of the other unpleasant aspects of which are the practices of the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred. The people about whom the hon. Gentleman bellowed are products of the legislation that the hon. Gentleman supports. In conditions of scarcity and black markets, such people are produced.
At last we are introducing a sensible measure to bring private rented accommodation back into use, to drive the bad money out with proper investment in good housing by serious investors who will manage their housing properly. That will help the mobility of labour and the homeless about whom the Labour party claim to be so full of care. It will help the young and all those who are excluded by the present failure of the housing market.
We are bringing the housing association movement into a new system whereby it will be able to borrow on the markets the money that is available to provide more social housing. That is absolutely right and is supported by all those who have thought about the matter for a moment.—[Interruption.]
The cause of all the noise and uproar from the Labour party and which has the Labour party running scared is that we will be going into some of the badly managed council estates with the housing action trusts and we will be showing the council tenants that it is possible to manage the properties properly and that there are better ways of managing housing than they are used to in boroughs such as Southwark, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred. After a forthright programme of improvements on arrears, that borough has managed to increase them by 35 per cent. Another campaign like that and the borough's housing bill will be enormous.
The Labour party has made the most racket and least progress in its arguments about the fact that we are giving a new right to tenants. What frightens the Labour party most is that the tenants who want to escape will be allowed to do so. That is not my phrase; it is from a paper produced in the London borough of Lambeth. It said, "If we are not careful and do not start looking after property properly, we may find the tenants escaping to housing associations." That will be satisfactory for those tenants.
I make one prediction. When the Bill has been on the statute book for a while, in spite of all the witty remarks from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), all the sedentary interventions from the hon. Member from Walsall, North, the puns from the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the rest of the battery of deterrents that have been used against the Bill, the Labour party will find that there are good things about it. After a year or two, the Transport and General Workers Union will accept it and it will become Labour party policy.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) expressed his understandable concern about BISF houses not being designated as defective. I sympathise with him as I have similar problems with houses, though not of that design, in my constituency. I am perfectly willing to discuss the problem with him, but I do not want him to believe


that we shall easily add anything to the defective housing list. There may, however, be other ways of giving help, and I should be glad to talk to him about housing investment programe allocations.
We are sending to the House of Lords—I hope for their Lordships' approval—one of the flagship Bills of this Parliament. It is a Bill of which, in the long term, the House will be exceedingly proud.

Mr. Soley: The Government will regret the Bill. They are dragging housing back into the 19th century. They have forgotten that local authorities built us out of the slums of the 19th century and the housing crises after the two world wars.
The Bill has broken the consensus on housing and threatens to divide the housing association movement. It has put private tenants at risk. I warn the Government that they are putting many private tenants at risk, and they know it. They have put public tenants at risk. They have frightened them with their proposals to undermine local democracy and the way in which the voting system operates. They have made a mockery of any claims about the democratic process of giving people a right to choose a different landlord. When they first floated this idea, we said, "We do not mind tenants having a right to choose a different landlord, but if that is a right it should apply to the private sector and where there is a non-resident landlord." The argument should be about the standards of management of housing.
In the small print of the Bill one finds that there is a voting system that allows the dead to vote and allows empty properties to be counted as a vote in favour of a transfer. Need we wonder why people are angry about the Bill's proposals?
At best, the Bill is irrelevant to the housing needs of this country; at worst it is catastrophic and will create a crisis to which even this Government will have to respond.
The Government have talked about choice. What choice does a person have who is living in a cardboard box barely a few hundred yards from here? What choice have people who have been taken in as homeless by local authorities—whose number has doubled since the Government took office? What choice does a child have who spends two or three years in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Bed-and-breakfast accommodation hardly existed in anything like its present form until the Government took office. It did not exist under previous Conservative or Labour Governments, but, by God, it exists under this Government in a far worse form than ever before.
What chance does anybody have, with the present house price inflation, to get a house that they can afford if their salary is relatively low? What chance do they have to trade up if they have had children and need a larger home? While house price inflation rockets out of control, what chance does anybody have of renting at market rents when in certain areas they are known to be at least £100 per week and rising? All that the Government can say is that they will increase housing benefit. We know that they have cut it eight times already and propose to do so again.
The Bill will be a Rachman's charter. One saw panic on Minister's faces when the business enterprise scheme was

introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a desperate attempt to get more private money into the private sector, but with no safeguards worth mentioning. Just as in 1957, when the controls were taken off and Rachman emerged, so these days there has been a dramatic loss of private property. Half a million homes have gone from the private rented sector in the past eight years—more than at any other time, except for just after 1957. I sadly predict that the people will regret the Bill and ultimately, thank heavens, so will the Government. That may be one of the few good things to come from it.

12 midnight

Mr. Simon Hughes: When the numbers of the homeless in Britain were at their highest ever, the Government came to the House with a Bill that did not once mention the homeless. Since November, we have spent a long time trying to make a bad Bill a little better. There have been more amendments than the House could properly cope with on Report. The Government resisted and said, "We do not need time. It can be rushed through. It will be all right." Even now, we have only just begun to expose the weakness and feebleness of the Government's position.
For private tenants who seek security, the Government will give them less security and higher rents. For the housing association movement which wanted a guarantee of independence, free from the public sector and from the private sector, we see a Government ever more determined to push it into the private sector's arms. With housing action trusts, local authorities that are battling to deal with the needs of past and future tenants are told by the Government, "We are coming in. We shall take over what property of yours we want and, if necessary, you will pay us to do so, even if you have no say."
The Government say that they are giving council tenants a choice. The only way they can do that is by producing a voting system that does not exist even behind the iron curtain. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister naively said:
I thought that we arranged that it was a majority of those voting".—[Official Report, 23 June 1988; Vol 135, c. 1257.]
But the Secretary of State and the Department of the Environment had blinded the Prime Minister with their science. They have gone back on her word of last June. They have put into the Bill a provision that clearly means that people can find their property taken away from them, even though no one may have voted for that to happen.
In the year when the Budget gives to the rich, when the poll tax saves thousands of pounds on the houses of Cabinet members and when the Government's legislation screws the homeless and those dependent on social security, giving them less money, people at the bottom of the housing ladder hear the Government say, "Trust us, because we trust the market." We would rather trust people to tell us what they want. The opportunity for agreement on how we house our nation should have been taken. After the Bill, the people will be as before—two nations, the well housed and the rest—and the Government will have increased the numbers of the rest, their pain and suffering. We shall vote against this disgraceful Bill because it is a legacy of an uncaring, unsympathetic and callous Government.

Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 168.

Division No. 383]
[12.03 am


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Franks, Cecil


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gardiner, George


Allason, Rupert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Goodlad, Alastair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Ashby, David
Gow, Ian


Aspinwall, Jack
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Atkins, Robert
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gregory, Conal


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bendall, Vivian
Grist, Ian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Ground, Patrick


Benyon, W.
Grylls, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boswell, Tim
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harris, David


Bowis, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hawkins, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Hayward, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heddle, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holt, Richard


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irvine, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cope, Rt Hon John
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Latham, Michael


Curry, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Day, Stephen
Maclean, David


Devlin, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Miscampbell, Norman


Dicks, Terry
Moate, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neale, Gerrard


Dover, Den
Nelson, Anthony


Durant, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Nicholls, Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Evennett, David
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Farr, Sir John
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Favell, Tony
Patnick, Irvine


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Forman, Nigel
Pawsey, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forth, Eric
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)





Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raffan, Keith
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil


Riddick, Graham
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rost, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Scott, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Speller, Tony
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Mike


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stokes, Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Summerson, Hugo





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Crowther, Stan


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Battle, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flannery, Martin


Boateng, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fraser, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gordon, Mildred


Cartwright, John
Gould, Bryan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Henderson, Doug






Hinchliffe, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Holland, Stuart
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Richardson, Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry
Sedgemore, Brian


Livsey, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Clare


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Vaz, Keith


Maxton, John
Wall, Pat


Meacher, Michael
Wallace, James


Meale, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michael, Alun
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wilson, Brian


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morley, Elliott
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wray, Jimmy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.


O'Brien, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Policing (Leicestershire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Neubert.]

Mr. Michael Latham: I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to this debate, and as I have told his office, I want to share this half-hour with all Leicestershire Members. I have given both you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend notice that any Leicestershire Member who seeks to catch your eye over the next 15 minutes has my consent to do so. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), whom custom requires to remain silent, but who is tremendously involved in this issue. I shall be brief, to allow time for other hon. Members to take part.
I pay tribute to the efficiency and outstanding public service of the Leicestershire constabulary, excellently led by its chief constable, Mr. Michael Hirst. It is a small force with only 1,740 members, but its reputation is high in the county, and it is fiercely proud of its good relations with the Leicestershire people. However, it is understaffed. There has been no significant increase in its establishment since 1979, but there has been a big increase in its work load. Between 1979 and 1986, there was a 64 per cent. increase in crime in the county, but worse, there was a 191·5 per cent. increase in robbery, a 127 per cent. increase in burglary of dwellings and a 151 per cent. increase in criminal damage. Those are shocking figures, and they contain some of the crimes that give the public most concern. They must be tackled; we must bring the figures down sharply, and for that we need more police.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may say that Leicestershire has been treated fairly, but he has refused to allow one more officer this year, let alone the 45 extra officers for whom the chief constable called. Up-to-date figures show that nine forces with a worse percentage of officers deployed on patrol duties and a poorer population of civilians per 100 police officers, were given an increase in police numbers when Leicestershire got nothing. Again, nine forces which received an increase in numbers in May have a lower population per police officer. That seems unfair.
Leicestershire Members, including myself, have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Ferrers. When Conservative Members saw both those Ministers in March, we stressed that the chief constable had undertaken a major review of the force. We wanted to eliminate two grounds of criticism that had been advanced by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in 1986. The proportion of the force on patrol duties has been significantly improved, and a substantial programme of civilianisation has been set in motion. The force believes that it has done what the Home Office asked of it, and it is dismayed that its co-operation has met with no reward of extra manpower.
I am concerned about the most recent figures relating to the health of the force. In the first three months of this year, 1,212 days were lost through injuries to officers on duty, compared with 602 in the 12 months before, and 1,048 days were lost through nervous complaints and stress, compared with only 161 a year before.
We are experiencing in Leicestershire the repulsive sight of violence and yobbish disorder in rural areas. My constituents insist that the small towns and villages be properly policed. Leicestershire had over 12 incidents of rural disorder in 1987. That is a gloomy record, which it shares with only seven other force areas. That is not tolerable, and the chief constable must have the manpower to maintain the Queen's peace throughout the county, as he is determined to do.
My final point is a very local one. The police station at Oakham is a quite deplorable temporary building, nearly 20 years old. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me in a letter on 31 March that he hoped to be able to give approval for a new police station in Oakham this coming November, with building work to start in 1991–92. I must tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in no uncertain terms that I shall insist that that undertaking be honoured. I was at Oakham police station as recently as last Friday, meeting the chief constable, and it is not good enough for our Rutland bobbies to have to put up with such a shameful old building.
I look to my hon. Friend to assure Leicestershire people that he is concerned about their policing. I am sure that other hon. Members representing Leicestershire will want to say the same.

Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for raising this matter on the Adjournment and for his courtesy in sharing his precious and brief time with other colleagues.
This is an issue upon which all hon. Members are united. We are outraged at the increase in crime over the past nine years, at the fact that, last year, the chief of police did not obtain any of the additional help that he requested from the Home Secretary and that, this year, not one additional police officer has been permitted.
It is not enough to pontificate about the growth in crime. The only way in which we shall enable people to walk safely on our streets is by increasing the strength of the force that patrols those streets. That applies in rural and city areas and especially in my constituency, in the great estates of Beaumont Leys, New Parks, Mowmacre, Stocking Farm, and Braunstone, where there are not sufficient police officers and where they can obtain more only by taking officers from other areas. That must stop. The police must be increased in numbers and the Government must listen to the united voice of all hon. Members from our great county.

Sir John Farr: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) who has been kind enough to let us participate in his debate and, like him and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I shall be brief.
The gravity with which Leicestershire Members, from all parties, view the situation can be gauged by our presence here tonight. Every Leicestershire Member, except, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is present tonight, and we shall listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton gave the hare statistics, which are very telling, but he did not elaborate on two points. First, the present calibre and

quality of the Leicestershire policeman is unsurpassed. We want new recruits. We must have an increased establishment and we want more of the same top-quality officers that we have in Leicestershire now. The second point that should be emphasised,—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass it on to the Home Secretary as soon as possible, is that, in Leicestershire, we have to cope with some very grave situations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton referred to the strange and savage character of many crimes that we have had to face in the past 12 months in Leicester. Some of the most brutal crimes in the country have occurred there and we always have the potential for serious crime because of the large number of high-risk prisoners who are held—perhaps I should say not held—in the city and county. I refer here to the continual need for vigilance by the police force at prisons such as Gartree maximum security establishment, where the first helicopter escape in the United Kingdom took place only recently. We are a special case and, we expect special treatment next year.

Mr. Keith Vaz: The good fortune of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) is shared by all of us and we are all grateful to him for allowing us the chance to participate in the debate. This is, of course, a central issue of concern to people in Leicestershire and the city of Leicester. One crime is committed every 10 minutes in the county and, last year, 50,900 crimes were committed, representing a 65 per cent. increase since 1979.
I join other hon. Members in praising the work of the chief constable, Michael Hirst, and of divisional commander David Redman., but it is important for the Minister to realise that the demand for extra policing is not just based on the inner-city areas of Leicester. The demand comes more strongly and clearly from the outer estates, places in my constituency such as Northfields, Nether Hall, Evington, Goodwood and Rowletts Hill. A recent meeting at Humberstone was attended by a number of residents who were most concerned about the increase in vandalism that is occurring in the outer areas. These are neglected areas with the inner-city problems which we have had over a number of years.
I, too, met the Minister. I was concerned when he said that he had to hold in reserve a number of police officers in case there were disorders in various parts of the country and he was called upon to allocate extra officers to deal with them. Leicestershire should not be penalised because it has good police-community relations. A survey recently conducted in the outer estates of Leicester showed a tremendous demand for increased policing, including the full-time opening of the Uppingham road police station.
The Minister's refusal to provide any extra police officers for Leicestershire is a slap in the face to the local police force, which has worked. hard over the past few years, including Superintendent David Adams, who has expressed concern, and to the elderly, who are unable to walk the streets of Leicestershire without fearing for their lives and their safety. We urge the Minister to reconsider the allocation and to give Leicestershire what it deserves, which is extra police officers on the beat.

Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for raising this matter in debate and allowing myself and others to intervene.
On Friday, I met the chief constable to discuss the very matter my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton has drawn to the attention of the House tonight. I found that he was of the opinion—it was one that I shared with him—that the morale of the police force in Leicestershire is at its highest, despite all the problems that it faces. That speaks well for it.
I recently went out on a police patrol on a Saturday night—there is a problem of vandalism, especially on a Saturday night—and from what I saw on that occasion I cannot speak too highly of the force. I visited the Leicester football ground recently, and there saw all the efforts that are being made to contain rowdyism and football hooliganism. Once again, I was much impressed by the high standards of the Leicestershire police.
Unfortunately, the level of crime is rising. There are problems in rural areas in my constituency, for example, where residents are paying their rates, paying for the police force and paying their taxes generally. Those who live in villages and towns have as much right to be protected as those who live in the cities. There is a problem with hooliganism. Recently, in Coalville, a large crowd of drunken youths went on the rampage through the town and there were nine arrests. That was viewed extremely seriously by the people of the town, who were most concerned at the level of policing. Fortunately, the Leicestershire police were able to cope, but I am not too sure that they can continue doing so for much longer with problems of that sort.
All the figures show that the Leicestershire police have done their utmost to comply with Home Office demands. What more can they do to get more officers? The figures show that they have done everything possible. I join my fellow Leicestershire colleagues in saying that we must have an increase in the manpower of the Leicestershire police force.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on being fortunate enough to secure the Adjournment debate. I express my gratitude to him for allowing me to participate in it as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
The cross-party unity on this issue shows beyond a shadow of doubt the resentment that is felt by all people in Leicestershire at the Home Secretary's decision not to increase the police establishment in the county by 45. I appreciate that criticisms were made in 1986 by Her Majesty's inspector, but my view—I am sure that it is shared by all hon. Members—is that great strides have been made in eliminating two particular criticisms that were then made. In terms of officers on patrol duties and civilianisation, Leicestershire is among the best areas in the country. The two specific criticisms made in 1986 have now been eliminated.
The point has been made—which we do not need to over-emphasise—that crime is on the increase in Leicestershire, as it is throughout the country.

Increasingly, that is placing an intolerable burden and stress on the present police establishment. At the minimum, to remove that stress and to remove some of the burden, the Minister can take a step in the right direction by accepting the view of the chief constable and that of the police committee that at least 45 officers are required to increase the establishment now.
I urge the Minister to make that bold decision this evening, not just to placate his hon. Friends and Opposition Members, but to reassure the citizens in the county of Leicestershire.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I too am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I am desperately concerned that the Hinckley sub-division is becoming stretched when it has to deal with disorders such as that in Smeeton Westerby in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Fan), where 40 or 50 youths invaded a party. That night, police had to be drawn from Hinckley, Lutterworth and Wigston to cope with the disorders. That left Hinckley precariously under-policed.
We have heard about the disturbances at Coalville from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). That was another occasion when police were taken from Hinckley to deal with a disturbance. I spoke to the superintendent this afternoon, who told me that there was trouble in Nuneaton a few days ago. Officers from Hinckley had to be put on duty between 2 am and 3 am. We are very concerned about the problem in Hinckley. We need the extra police. Our police are doing a tremendous job, but I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister. We have not had an increase in complement in Leicestershire for the best part of a decade. Minister, give us our police and give them to us now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I recognise the very strong feelings felt by Leicestershire Members of Parliament on this issue. That concern is manifested by the fact that all eight Members from the county are in the Chamber tonight and seven have spoken. The eighth, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is precluded from speaking by convention. However, he has made his views on the subject crystal clear by his presence tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Lawson?"] Of course, the same applies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).
I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on having secured this debate and put his arguments so concisely and lucidly. Incidently, I also congratulate him on allowing six other hon. Members to join in the debate. In all my experience, I cannot remember that happening before. It made the debate much more interesting than it might otherwise have been.
This has been an important debate, because it has emphasised the strength of feeling. I want to describe the approach that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has adopted to the Leicestershire constabulary. If time allows, I will refer to the wider problems of the police service.
At the end of April, the strength of the Leicestershire constabulary stood at 2,250 men. That figure is made up of 1,749 police officers and 501 civilians. That represents an increase of 187 since May 1979, when the Government took office, of whom 48 are police officers. During that period, 27 extra police officer posts have been approved for the force establishment, which now stands at 1,733.
The background to the application has been alluded to by several of my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. In June 1986, the police authority applied to the Home Office for approval of an increase of 110 police officer posts over two financial years. As hon. Members will appreciate, the inspectorate was consulted on the merits of that application. On the basis of the advice that the Home Office received, the police authority was informed that its application could not be approved.
The justification for that decision was that there existed within the force at that time considerable scope for civilianisation. It was thought that that process would release police officers that the authority required for operational duties, by filling posts that were then inappropriately filled by police officers. The force was invited to undertake a thorough-going review of posts, so as to maximise its use of existing resources.
At the same time, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for the region in which Leicestershire lies wrote to the chief constable explaining the reason why the authority's application had not been approved. It is to the chief constable's great credit that his immediate response was to release over 70 police officers from desk jobs for operational duties.
I pause here to comment that, although I recognise that hon. Members feel that the increase to which I have already referred is not impressive in itself, added to the figure of 187 must be the number of officers released for operational duties as a result of civilianisation. That process lies very much within the spirit of the Home Office circular 114/83 on effectiveness and efficiency within the police service.
I turn to the most recent application we have received from Leicestershire police authority, and I shall try to explain the considerations that were in our minds. In January this year, the authority applied for 91 extra police officers, spread over three financial years. The proposal was that 45 would be recruited in 1988–89, 33 in 1989–90, and the remainder in 1990–91. The application was accompanied by a report from the chief constable. Again, to give him credit, he outlined proposals for achieving more operational officers through civilianisation and identified 82 posts that could be civilianised over three years.
As anybody in the Chamber will appreciate, that application from the authority, supported by the chief constable, was enthusiastically endorsed by those Members of Parliament who represent the county and who are present in the Chamber tonight. They have also corresponded with and spoken to Ministers, they have put down questions, and they have made direct representations in meetings with, for example, my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Ferrers, who has direct and immediate responsibility for these matters in the Home Office.
It may be helpful if I make it clear that, when considering such applications, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must take into account a wide variety of factors. They inevitably include the particular policing problems in each area, the incidence of crime, the

police-population ratio, and the effectiveness with which each force's existing resources are being employed. Those are all important factors, but none of them is conclusive on its own.
It is important to consider the way in which a number of those criteria apply in the context of Leicestershire. I acknowledge at once that a number of the arguments put forward—for example, those deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton—are particularly powerful. However, they are not conclusive by themselves.
The police population ratio to which my hon. Friend alluded varied between 1980 and 1987 from one officer per 484 members of the population to one officer per 505. Excluding the Metropolitan and City police forces, the national average is 455. Nevertheless, that puts Leicestershire almost at mid-point of all forces outside London, because 17 had poorer ratios and 23 had better.
Offences and the rate of increase in the number of offences is another criterion to which a number of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, have alluded. Over the relevant period, offences grew by 31·2 per cent., which is slightly more than the average. However, in terms of offences per 100,000 of the population, the Leicestershire figure for 1987–5,817—is well below the average of 7,773. Therefore, while crime has increased, it has done so from a relatively low base. Again, the force is roughly in the middle—25 forces have higher levels of crime and 17 have lower.
In terms of offences cleared up, Leicestershire has a creditable rate of 44·7 per cent., which compares with a national average of 33·1 per cent. While clearly a force's achievements in that area are not to be used against it when considering its manpower needs, one cannot ignore the fact that those figures put Leicestershire at the top end, because 37 forces have had poorer clear-up levels.
I have dwelt on those facts because levels of crime have been argued in support of the Leicestershire application, which is understandable. However, it is right to emphasise that, while all those considerations are taken into account, none standing by itself is conclusive.
Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary was consulted on the merits of the latest Leicestershire application. advise my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, and Opposition Members, that this time round there was not the concern felt about civilianisation that there was on the previous occasion, because impressive steps have been taken in that connection, and all credit to the chief constable and his force for that. Nevertheless, in the light of the advice that has been received from the inspector, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decided that Leicestershire's application could not be given priority over other applications.
It has been explained to the police authority, and the chief constable—I repeat it again tonight—that Leicestershire's application was considered in the context of the programme of phased increases in police manpower which the Home Secretary announced in May 1986. The programme allows for total increases of 2,000 police posts for provincial police forces over four years, of which only 500 were available for 1988–89. Demand far exceeded what was available, so not all applications could be met this time around. However, the authority has been assured that its


application will be reconsidered when decisions are taken on the next tranche of posts to be approved under the programme.
I understand—it is entirely understandable—that the police authority is disappointed not to have received an allocation. My right hon. Friend the noble Lord Ferrers has therefore agreed to meet the police authority to hear its views on policing the county.
I should like to make a further point about resources and the Home Office circular. It is sometimes assumed that

the police authority need only satisfy specific criteria to meet the requirements and achieve the allocation. In fact, that is not the case. Although the criteria must be satisfied, it is inevitably a subjective judgment on where priorities lie. I recognise that that is very hard for individual forces to accept; it is also very hard for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make. My hon. Friend——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.